Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON STAFFS

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cuts are being made in prison staffs.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): In view of the continued increase in the prison population, I am taking up with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a matter of urgency the provision of staffs in the prisons adequate to the present situation.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While that reply will do something to remove the widespread public anxiety which arose out of the various notices of dismissal which have already been given to members of prison staffs, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the prison staffs are not going to be cut down, for it is quite clear that our prisons at the moment are very much overcrowded and, in view of the negligible recruiting for prison staffs, under-staffed as well?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have said that I am acting at once in the matter, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman should appreciate that the numbers of prison staffs in post are being temporarily limited but that no actual reductions have been made.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the possibility of reducing the prison population? Instead of keeping people behind bars, could not some be segregated? There are mental cases where there was no criminal intent, for instance. Could not these people be put on useful work?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOWERS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Mr. Mulley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement concerning the progress towards the implementation of the recommendations of the Gowers Committee on Health, Safety and Welfare of Non-Industrial Workers.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret that I am still unable to make any statement.

Mr. Mulley: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is most unsatisfactory? Does he not recollect that as long ago as last July his predecessor gave an assurance that he would begin discussions with interested parties on the draft of a Bill before the end of 1951? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is a matter of great urgency and anxiety for the people affected, and that it is over three years since the Committee reported? Can we not get some statement of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends in this matter?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have looked into the matter and I find it very difficult to get some suggestions which can be translated into practical action, but I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICE OF THE PEACE ACT, 1361

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to repeal the Justice of the Peace Act, 1361.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I take it that the hon. Member has in mind that part of the Act of 1361 which enables a court to order a person to find sureties to be of good behaviour. I know of no sufficient grounds for introducing legislation to repeal this provision of the law which, in my view, is a useful measure of preventive or precautionary justice.

Mr. Brockway: I put my supplementary with some diffidence to such a high legal authority. Is it not the case that other high legal authorities, including Stone, have drawn attention to the very wide character of this Act and that its use in the cases of Tom Mann and George Lansbury, and two more recent cases, including that of Mrs. Pat Seares


in protesting against "Desert Fox," illustrates the need for some reconsideration of this Act?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I respectfully disagree, for the reason that the exercise does not amount to a conviction. A person does not go to prison if he finds sureties. In my view, the general use of the powers has been salutary and helpful to the persons concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL CONSTABLES (CIVIL DEFENCE ALLOWANCE)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why special constables get no allowance while undertaking civil defence training, although civil defence volunteers get 3s., or 2s. per hour in the case of women, for the same duties.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Special constables undertake civil defence training as part of their police duty and are entitled to claim reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred and refreshment and subsistence allowances based on police rates. The allowances quoted by the hon. Member are not those paid to volunteers in the Civil Defence Corps.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT, 1870

Mr. Healy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation before the Coronation repealing the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, 1870.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Her Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce such legislation.

Mr. Healy: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think the time opportune to wipe out these discriminations, which were directed mainly against the people of one faith and which are the last relic of an intolerant era?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Again I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with the Questioner. I think such legislation might well be controversial and it might provoke sectarian feelings, which are so much less than they were in times past. Practically, there is nothing to prevent the Roman Catholics from using territorial titles among themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE GUIDANCE ORGANISATIONS (GRANTS)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his decision to cut by half the £12,000 a year grant made to the National Marriage Guidance Council, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the Family Welfare Association, in view of the good work undertaken by these associations and the need to preserve the marriage state.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 22nd May.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman expedite his consideration of this matter, or reconsideration of it, because it seems an absurd position that about 200 times as much was spent on facilitating divorce as is to be spent on assisting people to make up their differences between themselves, which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would want to do to the best of his ability? Will he please give this matter immediate attention?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of aliens who have become resident in the United Kingdom since 1938.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On 31st March, 1952, the number of aliens over the age of 16 registered with the police as having been in the United Kingdom longer than three months was 393,314, as compared with a figure of 196,852 registered aliens in 1938.

Mr. Shepherd: While appreciating the traditional rights of asylum, can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, in granting further permits to people who reside in this country, he is mindful of the size of our own population and the difficulty we shall have in supporting it in the years to come?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would rather not limit my action by any categorisation of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL TRAFFIC WARDENS

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, following his discussions with representatives of local authorities and certain Government Departments, he will now make a statement on the provision of traffic wardens for school children, especially at places where pedestrian crossings have been removed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) on 22nd May.

Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how long it will be before the proposed legislation is introduced and carried into effect, and, in the interim, would it not be advisable to restore the school crossings which have been removed?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that anyone can seriously prophesy when legislation will get through Parliament. On the second point, I earnestly hope that every local authority will continue working the present scheme until legislation gets through. Let us do the best that we can with the present system, and I hope that the new scheme will produce a better state of affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — OBSCENE PRESS ARTICLES (PROSECUTIONS)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions obscene headlines and articles in certain newspapers, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The Home Office is not a prosecuting authority, but I have no doubt that the appropriate authorities will take appropriate action in respect of any offences against the law relating to obscenity which come to notice.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me who is the appropriate authority?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Broadly, the prosecuting authorities are the chief constables in their various areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM CENSORSHIP

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the continual and depraved type of some films which tend to lower moral standards, he will take steps to make the censorship official and obligatory.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Under the existing law local licensing authorities have very wide powers of control over the exhibition of films. If my hon. Friend's suggestion is that these should be replaced by some form of governmental centralised censorship, I could not agree that this is either necessary or desirable.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the increase of crime recently is due to the materialistic age in which we live, and has greatly increased since 1945?

Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be careful not to be encouraged by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) to introduce Communist totalitarian methods into this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Catering Wages Commission (Report)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the recent report of the Catering Wages Commission; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Commission's Annual Report for 1951 just published, and in particular to that part of the Report in which the Commission say that they could not legally take the course they wish to follow in recommending changes in the Wages Board machinery.
When I became aware of these difficulties, I entered into discussions with both sides of the industry to see whether, by co-operation and good will, they could themselves agree on a course to follow that would enable them to work towards a mutually acceptable system of wage regulation as it affects the hotel industry. I am glad to say that a large measure of agreement has been reached and I am about to reconstitute the Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed


Restaurant Wages Board to enable effect to be given to the proposals that have been made to me by the trade unions and the hotel associations representing the employers.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the 1951 Report also refers to the question of a separate wages board for Scotland, and has he considered that; and in view of the fact that Mr. Tom Johnston and others in Scotland have repeatedly stated that this is necessary, what action is he taking to deal with it?

Sir W. Monckton: That matter has been considered, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to wait and see what the arrangements are and whether it is necessary to proceed further in the matter.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take care to distinguish between the large hotels in Scotland which are no different in equipment from those in England, and the small hotels in the isolated areas, which are quite unsuitable for many of the regulations which are imposed?

Sir W. Monckton: I have that very much in mind.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that we have been told constantly for years past to wait in connection with getting separate boards for Scotland, and that we are getting a little tired of waiting.

Miss Sonja Ziemann (Entry Permit)

Mr. Field: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds the German actress Sonja Ziemann was granted a permit to work in this country; and whether the appropriate professional organisation was consulted before issuing the permit.

Sir W. Monckton: A permit for Miss Ziemann was granted on application by a film company who wished to engage her for a foreign part in a film to be made in this country. My Department was satisfied, after inquiries, that her employment was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Field: Will the Minister bear in mind when issuing these permits that there are a large number of British artists out of work at present, especially in this type of acting—British naturalised actors—who could perform these roles, and does he not think it desirable that films which are assisted financially in part by the British taxpayer should give employment to British people so far as possible?

Sir W. Monckton: The precautions taken in this case were that the names of resident artists were considered, and they were found either unavailable or unsuitable. We did consult the British Actors Equity Association, who raised no objection.

Factories (Self-Inspection)

Mr. M. MacPherson: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to encourage the policy of self-inspection in factories.

Sir W. Monckton: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind a passage in the last published annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, which was addressed particularly to occupiers of the larger factories, and in which he suggested that they should develop more widely the systematic inspection of processes and plant by their supervisory staffs on a well arranged schedule. Factory inspectors, as part of their day-to-day duties, are continuously impressing this on occupiers of factories.

Mr. MacPherson: Is the Minister aware that the passage in question is not particularly enlightening as to the conditions and safeguards which would be used in the process of self-inspection in factories, and would he consider giving some information on what is being done and what safeguards there are that the standards are being maintained?

Sir W. Monckton: I would add this to the reply I made: We do, in fact, encourage self-inspection to see to the maintenance of safety standards in factories. The inspectors also encourage the formation of safety and welfare committees on which the work-people are represented.

Mr. MacPherson: I assume that self-inspection is looked upon, so far as his


Department is concerned, as not a substitute but a supplement to the ordinary factory inspector?

Sir W. Monckton: The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

Italian Miners

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour why the cost of bringing miners from Italy to this country is a charge on the taxpayer instead of on the National Coal Board.

Sir W. Monckton: This arrangement was made because of the paramount importance to the national economy of increasing the production of coal.

Sir E. Keeling: Was it not the intention of Parliament that the coal industry should be self-supporting and should not draw money from the Treasury?

Sir W. Monckton: The men were brought here at the expense of the Government because at that moment the national need was very great and it was thought important that it should be done. The repatriation of the men will not be at the expense of the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What steps are being taken to provide, suitable alternative employment for Italian miners who are not being repatriated?

Sir W. Monckton: That is a different question, but we are taking every possible step to secure employment for them.

Mr. T. Brown: Owing to the increased number of recruits for the mines and the remarkable increase in the output per manshift worked—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—oh, yes; hon. Members should read this morning's newspapers—is it not now unnecessary to import foreign labour into 825 British mines?

Mule Spindles (Lubrication)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Labour if he will, at an early date, by regulation under the Factory Acts, make compulsory the use of technical white oil for lubricating mule spindles, in view of the fact that this oil has been found to be free from the cancer-producing agent.

Sir W. Monckton: I have received from the Joint Advisory Committee on Conditions of Work in the Cotton Industry recommendations concerning the use of technical white oils for lubricating mule

spindles. While the statement in the last part of the Question has not yet been fully confirmed, consideration is being given to the practicability of making regulations to implement the recommendations.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that when the investigations are complete he will introduce the regulations at the earliest possible moment?

Sir W. Monckton: I shall certainly go ahead with the matter as quickly as I can. The report is still in the hands of the printer.

Ladies' Tailoring Trade (Dismissals)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, following the signature of the recent agreement with the ladies' tailoring trade for two weeks' holiday with pay, several firms have given immediate notice of dismissal to their entire staff; and whether he will take steps to prevent this violation of the agreement.

Sir W. Monckton: I am not aware of any such agreement, but the hon. Member may have in mind recent wages regulation orders settling a new basis for holiday pay. These orders, which were made to give effect to proposals of the wages councils concerned, came into force on 23rd May. I understand that there have been some dismissals among workers affected by the orders, but such dismissals do not involve an infringement of the orders.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard it as an infringement of the order if firms dismissed their employees and then told them that they would be re-engaged later?

Sir W. Monckton: If that endeavour were attempted I am not satisfied, as at present advised, that it would succeed. In other words. I do not think that by that method firms would evade the necessity for giving effect to the order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Mentally-defective Children

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the advantages which short-term stay homes for mentally-defective children give to harassed


parents; and whether he would be prepared to assist financially in the setting-up of such homes.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. In a circular issued on 21st January last, local health authorities and hospital authorities were fully informed of the conditions under which assistance may be given in providing such accommodation in the case of family emergencies. I am sending my hon. Friend copies.

Mr. Shepherd: While I appreciate the merits of the circular, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is able to go further and say that he will grant financial assistance even to private or quasi-private organisations who are prepared to run these homes if they have the capital to equip them?

Mr. Macleod: The local health authorities have powers which I could aid under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, and they also have powers to make grants in suitable circumstances to voluntary associations. These matters are covered in the circular to which I have referred.

Mr. Janner: As a large number of children coming within this category are not receiving the assistance and attention which they should have, will the right hon. Gentleman do what his hon. Friend has asked and encourage local authorities by offering them further assistance?

Mr. Macleod: That was the purpose of the circular. I am delighted to do anything I can in this way to encourage local authorities to take action in the matter.

Mrs. Braddock: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Minister of Works about this, because it takes a very long time to obtain the licences for altering premises which are required to house these children? If there could be some arrangement with the Ministry of Works to provide licences quickly for this purpose, the placing of children in the short-term homes would be expedited.

Mr. Macleod: I appreciate the point which the hon. Lady makes, and I will consult my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any sums used for this purpose must come out of the fixed amount

available to these authorities? As this is perhaps one of the most urgent needs in the public health field, will my right hon. Friend consider taking some special measures?

Mr. Macleod: I fully agree about the urgency of these cases, and in view of that I am prepared to look further into the matter.

Mental Deficiency Acts

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to introduce amending legislation in connection with the Mental Deficiency Acts.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am not yet in a position to say.

Mr. Shepherd: in view of the changes in technique and the need for classification, is it not most desirable that we should have some legislation dealing with the matter within the next 12 months? Can my right hon. Friend say that such legislation will be introduced within the next 12 months?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced, but my Department is examining the matter very carefully, and has been doing so for some time, with a view to ascertaining what legislation is necessary.

Broadmoor Institution

Mr. Gough: asked the Minister of Health if, in the interests of security, he will consider the removal of Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum to one of the many deserted islands on our coast.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir.

Mr. Gough: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is essential to consider the safety of the community and that it should be worth considering moving Broadmoor if it would prevent a repetition of the deplorable incident which happened a short time ago?

Mr. Macleod: I come from among the most deserted islands round our coast. The difficulties involved in my hon. Friend's suggestion make it really quite impracticable. Apart from the difficulty of building, there is the difficulty of staffing which, difficult enough already, would be absolutely insuperable.

Old People's Hostel, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will reconsider his decision to refuse permission for the building of an old people's hostel at Kenton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in view of the great need for further accommodation of this kind.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that it is not yet possible to say when acquisition of the steel needed for this building can be authorised.

Mr. Blenkinsop: If I could provide the right hon. Gentleman with a possible alternative scheme that made a smaller call on steel, would he reconsider the matter, in view of the very important consequences upon hospital accommodation elsewhere?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot possibly commit myself, but steel, of course, is a major limiting factor in this field. I should be delighted to examine any suggestion the hon. Gentleman put forward.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Do I understand from that reply that there are no other factors that would hold up approval, apart from steel, and that, if I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman about that, we could get the matter forward?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I said that steel is a major factor.

Day Nurseries, Kent

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Health whether a decision has yet been reached about the closing of day nurseries in Kent, and particularly about the closing of the day nursery at Pelham Road, Gravesend.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that the county council has referred the matter to the health committee for further consideration, and has decided to keep the nurseries open in the meantime until at least the end of June.

Cancer Cure Claim (Investigation)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the results of the inquiry into the Rees Evans cancer cure.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. A committee was appointed by my predecessor in October, 1950, consisting of Sir Robert Robinson, as Chairman, Sir Ernest Rock Carling, Sir Alexander Fleming and Harold Himsworth, to consider the claims made by Mr. Rees Evans to have discovered a treatment for cancer, and to advise whether they warranted further investigation and if so the way in which any investigation should proceed. The report has now been received, and in the normal way I should have proposed to publish it; but as it contains information supplied to the committee in confidence by Mr. Rees Evans and by patients and their relatives, I cannot do so. I can, however, say that the committee have advised me that the claims made do not warrant further investigation, and I have accepted that advice; and I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement of the committee's conclusions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that this investigation and inquiry did not disclose either the cause or the cure of this scourge, which is now claiming the largest number of victims of any single factor of mortality in this country, which has increased during the whole of the 50 years and every year, both in percentage and numbers during that period, and which is responsible in this country for the largest percentage of deaths of any country of the world, does not the Minister think the time is ripe for a full and independent inquiry into the cause of cancer?

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale appointed this committee, as I understand it, to report whether there was anything to investigate. He appointed a committee that is absolutely unequalled in its standing. That committee has advised me in the sense that I have told the House, and I really think there is nothing I can add to what I have said.

Mr. Bevan: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there was something peculiarly offensive and hurtful to the emotions of large numbers of people in giving such publicity to these claims before they had been properly investigated, and that all that has been done could have been done by sending a letter


to the Ministry of Health without arousing the hopes unnecessarily of so many sick people?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I entirely agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not a fact that today there is a higher proportion of cures of cancer than at any time in the history of this country?

Mr. Freeman: Could I ask if this committee was not entirely a medical committee, and in view of the fact that this is possibly an industrial problem as well, due to modern civilisation and modern development, there is a case for investigation along other lines? Would he not consider such investigation desirable?

Mr. Macleod: I have read the names of the committee to the House. I will read them again—Sir Robert Robinson, Sir Ernest Rock Carling, Sir Alexander Fleming and Sir Harold Himsworth. One could not conceivably set up another committee with anything like that prestige.

Mr. Bevan: Is not the hon. Member doing a great disservice now in attempting to suggest that those claims have not been properly examined? It will merely give rise to a large number of people believing that further investigation is necessary when, as a matter of fact, the claims in the first instance were completely without foundation.

Following is the statement:

The committee examined the histories of British and American patients treated by Mr. Rees Evans, and also investigated the materials used by him in his work, as well as receiving oral and written evidence from him. It did not examine patients under treatment, since it considered that, in most forms of cancer, assessment of the results of treatment is not possible until the patient has remained well for at least five years after treatment has ended, and also since the technical details of applying any particular treatment are irrelevant to the assessment of its value in treating cancer.

Examination of the histories of 22 British patients treated by Mr. Rees Evans between 1931 and 1945 who could

be traced from 34 names supplied led the committee to the following conclusions:


Insufficient information for diagnosis
5


Judged not to have suffered from cancer
7


No convincing evidence of cancer at time of treatment
3


Dead from or seriously ill from recurrence of cancer after treatment
2


Rodent ulcer
5

Inquiries were not pursued in the cases of rodent ulcer on the grounds that it is a form of skin cancer of slight malignancy; that it has been known for many decades that it can be successfully treated by several methods which remove the locally affected tissue; and that evidence of success in healing rodent ulcers throws no light on whether the same method will be useful in the treatment of cancers in general.

Examination of the histories of 16 American cases treated by Mr. Rees Evans in 1949-50 was also made, and the condition of these patients in July, 1951, was as follows:


Dead from cancer
8


Seriously ill from cancer
1


No convincing evidence of cancer 
2


Condition doubtful
1


No recurrence of cancer, but also treated surgically or with X-rays
2


Rodent ulcer
2

On their inquiries into these British and American cases the committee came to the conclusion that they provided no evidence that the Rees Evans treatment of cancer is of any value, though it may have an effect on rodent ulcers. Samples of the materials used by Mr. Rees Evans in treatment were analysed, and tested in experiments on animals. The committee were advised by a leading expert that the results obtained did not provide any indication for recommending further experiments.

On the basis of their inquiries into case histories and into the materials used, the committee have accordingly advised that the claims made by Mr. Rees Evans to have discovered a treatment for cancer do not warrant further investigation

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Tuberculosis Treatment (Cod Liver Oil)

Dr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware, and whether it is on his instructions, that doctors are receiving communications from executive


councils proposing surcharges in cases where cod liver oil and malt extract have been prescribed in the treatment of tuberculosis; whether he is aware that this preparation has for a long time been part of the recognised treatment in this disease, and is referred to as such in the report of the Cohen Committee; and whether he will cease penalising doctors who prescribe this preparation for their tuberculous patients.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I think there may be some misapprehension on this subject, on which I have issued no instructions. The Definition of Drugs Sub-Committee advised that, when cod liver oil and malt is used for the treatment of tuberculosis, it should be regarded as a drug. Their report also said that a doctor must be prepared to justify the ordering of the preparation as requisite for the treatment of his patient. I am proposing again to bring the report to the attention of executive councils and general practitioners.

Dr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask executive councils to withdraw the instructions which they have given that doctors who prescribe this preparation for their patients will be forced to go to tribunals to justify their action, as is taking place now?

Mr. Macleod: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for putting down this Question. It may be true that certain executive councils have misinterpreted what the Cohen Committee meant. The publicity given to this question and the fact that I am drawing the matter again to the attention of executive councils should cover the point which the hon. Member has in mind.

Hearing Aids

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health when bone conduction attachments will be made for Medresco hearing aids.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made with putting the bone-conduction hearing aid into mass production.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I cannot yet add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), on 15th May.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that an apparatus very similar to the Medresco

hearing aid is being manufactured now with an attachment which enables bone conduction to be effective, and is the Minister not aware that it would be very simple to make a similar attachment to the Medresco apparatus?

Mr. Macleod: I will look into that particular point, but the hon. Member will realise that these large-scale trials, under the auspices primarily of the Medical Research Council, have been going on for some time, and are within a matter of weeks of completion. It is expected that the results will be issued by the end of July and after that we will, I hope, be able to go ahead with the production of this aid.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is the Minister not aware that the delay in the provision of this aid is becoming nothing less than scandalous? This form of aid has been on the market for nearly two years, and a tremendous mass of knowledge as well as clinical experience from a very wide range has been acquired? Is it not time that these were available to the public?

Mr. Macleod: I have said that the Medical Research Council will be concluding their experiments by the end of July, and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), who has very expert knowledge in this field, will know that when large-scale experimental trials of this nature are being carried out speed is not the only consideration. We must have complete thoroughness as well. This matter is in the hands of the most responsible people in this country, and I feel confident that they will give us the results as quickly as they can.

Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an approximate estimate of the number of patients who are awaiting benefit from the bone conduction apparatus?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, almost exactly 4,000.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that field experiments in this matter were started as far back as 1950, and does it not seem that they are taking a long time to come to a conclusion about it?

Mr. Macleod: I have no personal knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman calls field experiments, but I


assume that the large-scale clinical tests now in progress would have followed on field trials. The clinical tests were started in October last and are to be finished towards the end of July.

Surgical Abdominal Supports

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health how many instances of abuse in prescribing surgical abdominal supports have been brought to his notice: and if he will give the details of the cases.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No detailed records are available, but experience has shown that many supports obtained through the hospital service have in the past differed little if at all from ordinary corsets.

Dr. Broughton: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal if he will withdraw the serious accusation which he made on 27th March this year when he suggested that there have been a good many cases of alleged abuse of prescribing what was not much more than reinforced corsets?

Mr. Macleod: I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is in his place during this supplementary. The hon. Member may be interested to hear a few lines from a circular issued by the Ministry of Health on 21st March, 1951. It is headed "Prescription of unnecessary appliances," and reads as follows:
This occurs particularly in connection with abdominal supports. Many of these ordered through hospitals differ little, if at all from corsets … and are rather garments than medical appliances. … An appliance should not he ordered for an importunate patient if other suitable treatment would render it unnecessary.
The hon. Member will be happy to know that he has maintained virginal and untarnished his record of throwing charges at the Leader of the House and stabbing his right hon. Friend in the back.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling us that the surgeons responsible for prescribing these belts have virtually ignored the instructions sent to them in March, 1951?

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. These appliances are ordered in conjunction

with the Ministry of Pensions. The right hon. Gentleman has an extraordinarily consistent record in that when he was Minister of Pensions he did not know that the Ministry were collecting all this information when he was Minister of Health he did not know that he had issued this circular: and when in opposition he abuses my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for instructions which he himself issued.

Mr. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman must not try to escape from the Question. He is the Minister now, and the House will want to know how it is possible, after the possibility of these abuses was drawn to the attention of the hospital authorities as long ago as March, 1950, that he can now say that the abuses still exist and he has to make charges to prevent them. That is the question I am addressing to him.

Mr. Macleod: Certainly the abuses that the right hon. Gentleman referred to exist because he sent a circular out about them. As a result of the action, for which he was responsible, the abuses have been considerably reduced. The only thing that surprises some of us is that he did not even know that he issued those instructions.

National Formulary

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health whether he will permit National Health Service patients to be issued free of charge with those drugs and medicines contained in the revised National Formulary, which will replace the 1949 edition on 1st June.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir.

Dr. Broughton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the policy suggested in this Question would remove the danger of needy cases failing to apply for medical treatment, and that such a policy would be far preferable to that which we now see laid down in his Regulations?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are many obstacles apart from the Act which recently received the approval of Parliament on account of which such a proposal could not possibly be put forward. He knows that the National Formulary is not complete, that there are a number


of valuable drugs not in it, and that it is undesirable to try to suggest to doctors the limiting of their prescribing in any way. Then there is also the point—and I do not expect the hon. Gentleman's agreement in this—that it would almost entirely nullify the effect of the 1s. prescription charge.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, in fact, the power of doctors is very prescribed? They are required to prescribe from the National Formulary if there is an adequate drug in that Formulary as against proprietary medicines? Would it not be unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the doctors can go outside the Formulary if there are suitable drugs in it?

Mr. Macleod: I did not give that impression, or at least I did not mean to, but there is no limitation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on the right of a doctor to prescribe.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that he is wrong in this matter and that there is a limitation? If he is not aware of that limitation he ought to be, because he may be called upon to discipline doctors who prescribe outside the Formulary if adequate drugs exist in it?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, but the point I was making was that the National Formulary, even the new one, is not complete.

General Practitioners' Pay (Report)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made towards arriving at a policy for a more equitable distribution of general medical practitioners' pay; and whether the forthcoming new scheme will be submitted to Parliament for approval.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The working party set up to agree a new method of distribution has completed its report, and I am arranging for copies to be available in the Vote Office on Thursday, 5th June. Any necessary amending Regulations will be laid before Parliament in the ordinary way.

Dr. Broughton: May I ask the Minister if he is going to let us have

the report of the working party in the form of a White Paper, and whether it is a fact that the payment of the additional £40 million to general medical practitioners, which is approximately the amount of the Danckwerts Award, is conditional upon there being a better policy for the distribution of pay? Can he, therefore, give us an assurance that the new proposed policy will be discussed in this House and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity of deciding whether it is satisfactory, before we are asked to approve of a large Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Macleod: Disentangling the three questions from that supplementary: First of all, the report which will be available in the Vote Office is the report itself of the working party. Secondly, it is true that what is called the Danckwerts Award is bound up with and indistinguishable from better distribution arrangements made by this working party. On the question of time to debate it, there are opportunities available to the Opposition, but that is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Marquand: Since the re-distribution of the total pool is one of the major tasks on which the working party was engaged, will the right hon. Gentleman publish with this report the evidence which he has of the distribution of doctors' payments at the time when the working party began its report or at the time when the Danckwerts investigation started so that we can compare the situation that existed before with what it will be under the recommendations of the working party?

Mr. Macleod: I will consider that suggestion, but, as a matter of fact, that report was only agreed by the working party last night, and I would rather not go into more detail about it at the moment.

Personal Case

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Health why he has not yet replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South, sent to him on 9th April, regarding the case of Mr. A. Warren and his treatment at the casualty department of the West London Hospital.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has discussed this matter with the hon. Member, and has written to him again after making further inquiries.

Mr. Williams: Is not the Minister aware that I first raised this question with his Department as early as February this year, and that since that date I have received all kinds of assurances from his hon. Friend, followed by letters containing all kinds of evasions and prevarications—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that I am somewhat tired of the attitude of his Department in this matter, which smells more than a little?

Mr. Macleod: I have looked into this case myself. All I can say in answer to that rather offensive supplementary is that I entirely repudiate everything contained in it.

Mr. Williams: Since the Minister has not looked into this question how can he know whether the supplementary is offensive or is based on facts? May I ask the Minister, before he makes offensive remarks, that he will look into the question and see whether in the end he would not agree with me?

Mr. Macleod: I have done so, and that is why I consider the supplementary question inaccurate.

National Registration Numbers

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health why national registration numbers are still required for the purpose of obtaining treatment under the National Health Service Acts.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my predecessor on 21st February to the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. Barber) and Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay).

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not clear that most people have thrown away their identity cards and their national registration numbers as well, and that a growing number of people are not going to continue the national registration service on a voluntary basis for the sake of the Minister of Health and that the administration of the National Health Service is being thrown into utter confusion by the attempt to preserve something which the Government have pretended to discard?

Mr. Macleod: The last part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is very much exaggerated, as I suspect he knows. Of course, it is true, and it was always recognised as such, that the abolition of the identity card would bring considerable difficulty to the National Health Service. I prefer those administrative difficulties to having identity cards.

Mr. Langford-Holt: What is the position of those who have come within the National Health Service scheme since the abolition of identity cards? Presumably they will have no number at all.

Mr. Macleod: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Mulley: Is this not another instance of the Government rushing into action to appease their back bench members without considering the implications'?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many patients are required to pay for treatment because they cannot produce their national registration number and are, therefore, being penalised without reason? Is that not one of the reasons for the present state of affairs?

Mr. Macleod: I should be very glad to look into any case of that kind.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that before the war we ran a national health insurance system without any numbers?

Mr. E. Fletcher: Are not people entitled to treatment under the National Health Service whether they know their national registration numbers or not?

Mr. J. Griffiths: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to remove the ignorance among his own hon. Friends about the new National Health Service?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Boards and Committees (Responsibilities)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health what changes he proposes to make in the functions and responsibilities of regional hospital boards and hospital management committees.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I do not propose to make any changes at present.

Mr. Sparks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recommendations in the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates? Is he now saying that he proposes to take no notice of them?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. The 11th Report of the Select Committee on Estimates has already been acted upon. The power to approve hospital management committee estimates and to permit transfers between subheads has already been restored to regional boards as a result of the Report.

Mr. Sparks: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the arrangement as it now exists?

Mr. Macleod: I should not say that I am fully satisfied. I am satisfied that the point made by the Select Committee has been met, but this is, of course, one of the biggest problems in the National Health Service, and I am looking at it all the time.

Staffing

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health how far the hospital service is now under-staffed; and to what extent the service is restricted on this account.

Mr. Iain Macleod: On 31st December, 1951, the number of beds unoccupied through lack of staff was 32,668, or about one-fifteenth of the total number of beds. I have no figures for the total number of staff of all types which would be required to bring these beds into use.

Mr. Sparks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the shortage is more acute in mental and tuberculosis hospitals than in general hospitals?

Mr. Macleod: I think it is. There is a certain wastage amongst nurses, which, for reasons which are well known, is particularly severe in the hospitals and institutions to which the hon. Member referred.

Mr. Sparks: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any action to make good the deficiency?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. Sir. This is a most important problem, and, as a matter of fact, the figures have been

all the time, as I am sure the hon. Member knows. For example, the number of beds unoccupied in December, 1949, was about 46,000; in December, 1950, just under 40,000; and on 31st December, 1951, it was under 33,000. That is a very steady improvement and I am doing everything I can to maintain it.

Warneford Hospital, Oxford (Dr. D. M. Johnson)

Mr. S. Marshall: asked the Minister of Health whether he will instigate an inquiry into the circumstances attending the removal of Dr. Donald McIntosh Johnson to the Warneford Hospital, Oxford on 16th October, 1950.

Mr. Iain Macleod: A full inquiry has already been made, the results of which have been communicated in detail to my hon. Friend. I cannot agree that any further inquiry is necessary.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister satisfied that there were no conditions other than those alleged prevailing, at the time of Dr. Johnson's detention?

Mr. Macleod: This is a very difficult and unhappy case into which I have looked. I am satisfied that Dr. Johnson was properly dealt with under the appropriate Act when he was removed to the Warneford Hospital in October. 1950.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

University Students (Awards)

Mr. Mulley: asked the Minister of Education if she will advise local education authorities that their university teacher's training and technical college awards should be made on the scale to be laid down for State and other awards made by her Department.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): As the hon. Member already knows, I shall shortly be announcing revised rates of maintenance for university students for whom my Department is directly responsible. I shall at the same time recommend these to local education authorities to be used so far as appropriate for university students to whom they make awards. There are no corresponding rates which I can recommend to local education authorities for students at technical colleges, though


there are many cases in which the university rate may be appropriate. Local education authorities do not normally make awards for the maintenance of students at teacher training colleges.

Mr. Mulley: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask that she will be sure, when sending out recommendations, to draw the attention of those authorities to the recommendations of her predecessor as set out in Circular A.332? Would she also direct the attention of those authorities to the desirability of the local education authority awards being of the same standard as those of her Department, and can she yet give us any indication as to when the new figures she referred to will be available?

Miss Horsbrugh: I cannot say at this moment. I hope very shortly. As I have said in the answer, we shall certainly draw the attention of the local authorities to the figures, but I should not like in any way to direct the local authorities, who have a right to make up their own minds, though I would advise and give them these examples.

Mr. Mulley: I do not want to press the Minister unduly, but does she not realise that if she carefully considers the amounts necessary to maintain a student at a university under another form of award, another student at the same university equally needs that amount of money? Surely that is a fact she could well draw to the attention of local authorities.

Miss Horsbrugh: As the hon. Member has realised those facts, perhaps the local authorities will realise them, too.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the increased award to take effect in the next academic year?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, I think so.

Nursery Schools, Somerset

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education what decisions she has now reached in connection with the closure of nursery schools in Somerset.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have asked the authority to give further consideration to their proposal.

Mr. Thomas: Do I understand from the reply of the Minister that she is in

entire disagreement with their proposal to close down so many of these nursery schools?

Miss Horsbrugh: It is for the local authority to decide. I feel that we must leave these decisions, which are the responsibility of the local authority, to them. I have asked the local authority to give further consideration to the proposal.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister satisfied that where local authorities are running mad as a result of the circular she sent out, she should stand on one side and see the interests of the children suffer?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, I certainly would not stand aside if I thought the local authorities were running mad. Even if local authorities in all parts of this country are perhaps not doing all we would like, I cannot yet agree with the hon. Gentleman that the) are running. mad.

Mr. Peyton: Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the local authority concerned in this matter that it is highly desirable to remove this uncertainty, and to do so as a matter of prime urgency, because the matter has been an open question for at least two months now?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, I quite agree. I hope that the local authority, having given it further consideration, will make up their mind.

Science Teachers

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Education whether she can give an estimate of the present shortage of science teachers in this country; and, in view of the accumulative bad consequences of this shortage in maintaining and developing high standards of technology in all branches of industry, what remedial action it is proposed to take in the near future.

Miss Horsbrugh: I cannot usefully add to the reply I gave on 21st February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing).

Mr. Janner: But has the right hon. Lady not yet had an opportunity of reading the Fifth Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy? Will she direct her attention to the serious


state of affairs displayed by the report, particularly with regard to the recommendation that a considerable increase in the rate of recruitment for teachers—roughly from between 800 and 900 to 1,200–1,300 a year—is necessary, and what does she propose to do about it?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will look at my reply of 21st February, he will see what I propose to do about it.

Deaf Children

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Education what increases in places in schools for deaf children have been provided since 1945; and how many deaf children are still awaiting school accommodation.

Miss Horsbrugh: The number of deaf and partially deaf children in special schools has increased from 3,461 in January, 1946, the first post-war year for which figures are available, to 4,749 in January, 1952. In December, 1951, 429 deaf and 541 partially deaf children were known to local education authorities to be waiting for admission to special schools.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister satisfied that a proportionately large number of deaf and partially deaf children are without any form of technical education, and is she further aware that it is absolutely essential for these children, if they are to do anything in the world, to get into special schools for special training as early as possible? Will she try to stimulate the authorities, either in combination or not, to provide the necessary accommodation?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, I am continuing to give a high priority to special school provision for deaf and partially deaf children in the educational building programme.

Educational Charities, Herefordshire

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that her proposal to centralise a number of educational charities now operating throughout the county of Hereford has aroused a strong volume of protest; and if she will reconsider this proposal which will divert money from the original wishes of the benefactors.

Miss Horsbrugh: The period of publication of the draft scheme in question expired on 26th May and objections have been received from the trustees of 17 of the 29 educational charities included in it and from the Hereford Rural District Council and the Leominster and Wigmore Rural District Council. I will naturally consider carefully all the objections before deciding my future course.

Mr. Baldwin: When considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend not realise that the policy of centralisation is against the policy of the Conservative Party, and that the effect of centralisation may well mean setting up an administration that will swallow a great deal of the available income from these charities?

Miss Horsbrugh: I will certainly bear all those points in mind.

Mr. Vane: May I ask the right hon. Lady whether it is her intention to centralise various educational charities in all counties or whether this is an exceptional case?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have already given a list of counties in which plans are being prepared under the Act that was passed.

Teaching Staffs, Somerset (Reductions)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that the teaching staffs of certain schools in the county of Somerset are to be reduced following consultation between the local education authority and Her Majesty's Inspectors; and under what authority do Her Majesty's Inspectorate assist local education authorities to increase the size of classes.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware that the Somerset authority have decided to increase their pupil teacher ratio, which at present is low compared with the national average. I understand that this proposal was discussed informally by officers of the authority with H.M. Inspectors, but H.M. Inspectors were in no way responsible for the authority's decision, which does not in any case require my approval.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that this authority has sent out letters to Governors of schools in which they say that they are taking this action, which


means larger classes in Somerset, on the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectors, and would she frown upon Her Majesty's Inspectors undertaking that sort of work?

Miss Horsbrugh: It is quite right if authorities want to consult Her Majesty's Inspectors, because, after all, one of the objects in having them is that they may consult and talk over the difficulties; but the responsibility is the responsibility of the local authority in coming to a decision after they have requested advice or suggestions from Her Majesty's Inspectors.

Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend, since geography comes under her jurisdiction, tell me in what part of the county of Somerset the City of Cardiff is situate?

Mr. Thomas: When the Minister is brushing up her geography, will she bear in mind that education is a topic which concerns the whole of this island?

Gravesend Grammar School

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir R. ACLAND:

74. To ask the Minister of Education whether, in view of her inability to include the reinstatement of war damage to Gravesend Grammar School in the 1952–53 programme, she will give special approval for this work to be done in 1953–54.

Sir R. Acland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without pressing the Minister to ask your leave to answer Question 74, may I give notice that if the answer is as unsatisfactory as I fear it will be, I shall take steps to raise the matter of the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: That is purely hypothetical.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House the business for the first week after the Recess?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. Assuming that the Motion for the Whitsun Recess is agreed to, the business for the first week after the Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 10TH JUNE-Report and Third Reading:

Town Development Bill.

Committee and remaining stages:

Customs and Excise Bill.

If there is time, further progress will be made with the Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY, 11TH JUNE—Debate on Broadcasting, which will take place on a Government Motion.

THURSDAY, 12TH JUNE—Supply (13th Allotted Day); Committee.

Debate on Agriculture.

FRIDAY, 13TH JUNE—I should remind the House that Government business will be taken on this day. It is as follows:

Committee and remaining stages:

Post Office (Money) Bill.

Second Reading:

Post Office (Amendment) Bill.

Further progress will be made with the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Bill [Lords].

Second Reading:

British Museum Bill.

During the week it is hoped to consider the several Double Taxation Relief Orders and the Import Duties (General Ad Valorem Duty Reduction) Order, which relates to railway sleepers.

Mr. Attlee: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the notices of a number of Prayers relating to National Health Service Orders, relating to very important matters? Will he consider providing time for these to come on, as they are important, before 10.30?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot say that I had actually noticed them, but I was sure that they would be on the Order Paper. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that


this might be discussed through the usual channels; and we will see what we can arrange.

Captain M. Hewitson: I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a Motion on the Paper in the names of myself and 60 of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and to ask whether it is his intention to give any time to the Motion.

[That this House considers that steps should be taken without further delay by Her Majesty's Government, in association with the Governments of the United States and France, to hold a Four-Power conference with the Soviet Government, limited in the first instance to discussing the possibility of free elections throughout Germany and the means by which such freedom could be assured to the German people; declares that in order to satisfy the fourth condition laid down on behalf of the late Government by the then Prime Minister, namely, that before any German re-armament is undertaken there must be agreement with the German people, fresh elections should be held in Western Germany before any commitment is undertaken by the Adenauer Government for a German contribution to the European Defence Community; and further expresses the hope that in the interests of Western European defence, the United States will soon furnish to the French Army the arms and equipment already promised, inasmuch as only if this is done can there be any possibility of satisfying the first condition in the late Prime Minister's declaration, namely, that the re-armament of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation must precede that of Germany.]

Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will refresh my memory and say what the Motion is about.

Captain Hewitson: The Motion refers to Germany and to the agreement that has just been signed.

Mr. Crookshank: I think we had better wait until the Foreign Secretary is back and has made a statement on these matters.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: Can my right hon. Friend say on what date the Housing (Scotland) Bill is likely to be taken?

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. I am sorry that I cannot oblige my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Referring to my hon. and gallant Friend's question, is it not rather deplorable that the Leader of the House is not aware of Motions which are on the Order Paper, signed by so many right hon. and hon. Members of the House? Is it not desirable to have a discussion on that Motion and on the international situation before there is further grave deterioration. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is universal anxiety on this matter, which, apparently, has not reached him?

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry, but there are a great many Motions on the Order Paper and I had forgotten the one to which the hon. and gallant Member was referring—that is all. But as we have only recently had a debate on Germany, and as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not at the moment in England, I cannot say anything about a debate on that subject.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there have been very many important decisions since the last debate on this matter, and that very important documents are in the Vote Office and have been studied by hon. Members in the last few days? Are we to wait until war breaks out before the House intervenes?

Mr. Crookshank: The House is about to rise for the Whitsun Recess. I was dealing with the business for the week after. The Opposition were offered a Supply day during that week, but they evidently preferred to use it for a debate on agriculture. We are only discussing that week.

Major Guy Lloyd: With regard to the business for Friday, 13th June, can my right hon. Friend say whether the reference to railway sleepers refers to wooden sleepers or to human sleepers?

Mr. Crookshank: That business will not necessarily be taken on Friday, 13th June; it might be on one of the other nights.

Mr. Harold Davies: In view of the fact that the House is going into Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister if he


would make a statement, before the House goes into Recess, about the British soldiers who have gone in with fixed bayonets and tear gas into the Koje Island camp? Can we have a full statement tonight or tomorrow?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I have no official information on the subject. I see it stated in the papers that there were no casualties.

Mr. I. Mikardo: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are to have a debate on the statement made on Tuesday last by the Minister of Transport on the future of civil aviation?

Mr. Crookshank: No. I cannot say at present but, as it is a matter which does not involve any legislation, it would be quite suitable for a Supply day.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is, so to speak, a unilateral aggression against public concerns by the Government and that in this case it is really up to the Government

to provide time? We did not start this row.

Hon. Members: Oh, yes.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: In view of the very unusual circumstances that neither the Government Front Bench nor the Opposition Front Bench had an opportunity to express their views on the Declaration of Human Rights Bill last Friday, will the right hon. Gentleman give an early opportunity for the further discussion of the Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot promise anything of that sort. After all, it is a Private Member's Bill, and Private Members' time is still not exhausted.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

House, at its rising To-morrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 10th June.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered,

Section 15 (2)
Maximum amount of increase of weekly rate of disablement pension where constant attendance is needed—





(a) in cases other than those of exceptionally severe disablement,
twenty shillings
twenty-five shillings



(b) in cases of exceptionally severe disablement
forty shillings
fifty shillings

This Amendment follows on the undertaking which I gave in the Standing Committee. Hon. Members will recall that one of the main provisions of the Bill is to raise the rate of benefit under the National Insurance and industrial injuries insurance schemes by approximately 25 per cent. These rates for constant attendance are not fixed. They are maximum figures which may be granted in any special case. There are two constant attendance rates; 20s. weekly which is the ordinary rate, and 40s. weekly which is granted in cases of exceptionally severe disablement.

Broadly speaking, the difference between the two cases, where the two different maxima apply are that in the second class of case the injured person is completely unable to perform even the smallest function or action without some assistance. It has been suggested that as the cost of everything has gone up since 1948 we should be well advised to make an increase in these rates corresponding to the general average of the other improvements which we are making in the insurance rate and in the benefits for industrial injuries.

A further point about this Amendment is that it will apply not only to cases under the industrial injuries insurance scheme but also to a number of old cases which come under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. In that way we shall be able to do a little more for some of the hardest and most severe cases of industrial disability which have occurred in the past.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman intimated during the Committee stage that he would look at this question to see what he could do, and we are reminded that this

Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF BENEFIT PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, at the end, to insert:

Amendment proposes to increase the existing rate of benefit by about 25 per cent. We are very grateful for the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and we certainly accept this Amendment.

Mr. Tom Brown: I am concerned about this Amendment, as are my mining colleagues on this side of the House, as it refers to industrial hardship. Is this the result of the promise given by the Minister during the Committee stage? If so, has he consulted the T.U.C., as he promised? He will recall that, in trying to obtain some improvement of the hardship benefit, we attempted to extract from the Minister a promise then. He said it was a complicated matter and he did not wish to interfere without further consultation with the T.U.C. I asked him on 20th May if he would be able to consult the joint council of the T.U.C. between then and Report stage.
Are we to take it that this Amendment, about which I am not complaining, has the approval of the Social Insurance Committee of the T.U.C. General Council? If the Minister has not consulted them will he say why he has not done so, so that we can reach common agreement on whether it should be 55s. or 60s., as the case may be?

3.45 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I fully support, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, the proposal put forward by the Minister. But I wish to put one point to him, which, I hope, is in order. Does this mean that the only benefit which is not now equated to the other increases is the hardship allocation allowance? First it was 11s. 3d. and then 20s., and, as I understand, it still remains at 20s. Will the Minister reconsider that?
Since 1948, were it not for the hardship allowance and the increase which was made, the scheme would undoubtedly have broken down, to the sorrow of the Minister who produced the White Paper and of myself who piloted the Bill. It would have been a calamity, and therefore I would ask if the hardship allowance is the only allowance which has not increased proportionately and whether it would be considered wise to increase it?

Mr. Peake: This Amendment has not been the subject of discussion with the T.U.C. and I gave no undertaking in relation to this matter that I would have further consultations with the T.U.C. But I should be very surprised to hear that there could possibly be anything in this Amendment to which they could take the slightest objection.
The undertaking which I gave about consultation with the T.U.C. referred to a different matter, the special hardship allowance to which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has referred. This allowance is not covered by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was the author of a Bill brought in in 1948 which increased the allowance considerably above the rate at which it has been fixed in 1946. There are further complications connected with the question of special hardship which I express the desire to discuss with the T.U.C. I shall carry out those discussions and I hope that we shall arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. Hon. Members know that there is to be a further Bill dealing with industrial injuries as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is to have discussions on this problem. I produced a Bill because I was satisfied that if I did not this scheme would break down, because it would leave too big a gap which was not covered. My present concern is that when this Bill becomes an Act that will immediately show itself again, and I am anxious to see the scheme a success. I believe that there would be great difficulties if the Minister does not do what I have suggested, and I am sure that the T.U.C. will represent that to him.
Amendment agreed to.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Very little remains to be said on the Third Reading of this Bill. I should like immediately to express my gratitude to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their response to my appeal that we should conclude our proceedings before the Whitsun Recess, and thereby enable the improved benefits contained in the Bill to become operative on the dates at which we have aimed.
The Bill has limited but important objectives. We deliberately set out to maintain the structure of social security as it was originally embodied in the three great Acts of 1945 and 1946—the Family Allowances Act, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and the National Insurance Act. The Bill makes no change in their structure; indeed, in one important respect, by re-establishing uniformity for the main rates under the National Insurance Act, it restores the original structure adopted in 1946.
The improvement in the family allowance rate has been very generally welcomed. It will do something to protect the larger families against the steady rise in the cost of living which has gone on since the original Act was introduced. So far as industrial injuries and National Insurance are concerned, the purpose of the Bill is to raise by approximately 25 per cent. the main rates embodied in the principal Acts which came into full operation in July, 1948.
I claimed on Second Reading, and I quite unrepentently adhere to my claim, that the Bill restores those benefit rates and gives them the purchasing power which they commanded in 1948. In the Standing Committee upstairs the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) who, I am sorry to say, is unable to be here today, suggested, and adduced in her support a leading article in "The Times," that the rates of benefit for National Insurance should have been raised by a percentage more nearly equal to the rise in the Assistance scales which has taken place since 1948.
I do not intend to embark now upon a long disquisition on this interesting question. It was argued by the right hon. Lady, with some support from "The Times," that, in fixing insurance benefits and pension rates at minimum retirement


age, we should have regard to some special cost-of-living index, not yet devised, which should take account only of the bare necessities of existence. It would also have to take into account the question of rent, which is made the subject of a separate allowance under National Assistance. It is material to remember that rent is one of the most variable factors in our economy. In the older cottages in the rural areas, it may be only 2s. or 3s. a week, and in the newer blocks of flats, and so on, in the densely populated areas, it may be 35s. or even 40s. a week.
I shall content myself at this stage by saying that in comparing the insurance benefits provided by this Bill with the rates enforced in 1948, and in using the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index for that purpose. I have followed the example set by two of my predecessors, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, whom we are glad to see here today, was moving the Second Reading of the Bill in 1946, he referred to the announcement by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) that he intended to hold the cost of living at 31 per cent. above the 1939 level.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly said:
We decided, therefore, to review the leading rates proposed in the White Paper and in the Beveridge Report on the basis of an overall addition of 31 per cent. instead of 25 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1742.]
The right hon. Gentleman was there making use of the "all-items index" prepared by the Ministry of Labour. When we discussed the Money Resolution to that Bill on 11th February, 1946, the right hon. Gentleman said, in reference to the quinquennial review which is to take place following the close of the financial year, 1954:
If by the time I come to make my review in five years. …
The right hon. Gentleman assumed that he would be making the review.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall be back in good time.

Mr. Peake: We shall have to see whose duty it is to make that review. The right hon. Gentleman, assuming that it would be his duty, said:
If by the time I come to make my review in five years, the Ministry of Labour has adopted, with the approval of the House, a new cost-of-living index figure, I shall accept that fully as a basis upon which I can make my review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1946: Vol. 419, c. 134–51.]
As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen know, the Ministry of Labour have prepared a new index since the right hon. Gentleman made that speech and it is by that index that I have made the calculations which I gave to the House during the Second Reading debate. The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West was asked a Question about the basis of calculation of the social insurance benefits, by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Major Lloyd) on 4th April, 1950. In reply, she referred the hon. Member to the explanations given by her predecessor on the dates which I have mentioned, to which she said that she did not think she could usefully add.
Therefore, I have only followed the example of my two predecessors in comparing the scale of benefit which I proposed with previous rates in relationship to the "all-items" cost-of-living index figure. It is an open question what basis should be adopted for the quinquennial review contemplated by Section 40 of the Act.

Mr. Harold Finch: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned figures in connection with the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act which came into operation in 1948, but the rates of benefit were fixed in 1946.

Mr. Peake: I thought that I bad made it clear that I was speaking of the date at which they became operative. That was July, 1948.

Mr. Finch: This is an important factor. There was a considerable difference between the cost of living in 1946 and 1948. That was part of our case when we sought an increase in the basic rates.

Mr. Peake: Everybody appreciates that the Acts were passed in 1946 and came into full operation in July, 1948. In relation to this interesting question about the cost-of-living index it is an open question still as to what basis should be


adopted for the quinquennial review of benefits contemplated by Section 40 of the National Insurance Act which will commence in 1954. It would, however, be wrong for me to prejudge that issue now and, in making the comparison upon the basis which I have done I have followed the example set by my two predecessors at the Ministry of National Insurance.
I do not want to repeat today what I said on Second Reading about the immensity of the burden we have undertaken by the commitments we have entered into under the National Insurance Scheme in connection with the aged.
There have been many signs in our debates that hon. Members appreciate how great this burden is going to be, but I am afraid that it is not at all understood or appreciated by the public at large. Columns of figures, especially when expressed in millions, mean very little to the man in the street, and I have, therefore, had the figures translated into graphic or pictorial form and will incorporate them in this way in our next Annual Report. As it may be some months before it is ready, I should be happy to provide any hon. Member with an advance copy which illustrates vividly the weight of the burden that we have Scheme in connection with the aged. There have been many signs in our tory review, some hard thinking will be necessary. Our debates on this Bill have shown that all parties can and will make their contribution in a helpful and constructive way. The insurance principle is dear to the hearts of the British people. and I know that it is the desire of all of us here to maintain and strengthen it. This Bill is a step, and, in my opinion, a considerable step, in the right direction. It fulfils the pledge which we gave to the people at the time of the Election, and I commend it whole-heartedly to the House.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. B. Taylor: I appreciate the comments which the Minister has made about the co-operation which he has received from both sides of the House. We have endeavoured, and, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, it appears that he is satisfied that we have succeeded, to reciprocate what he said during the Second Reading debate, when he expressed the hope that it would be possible to get this Bill through all its stages by

today, so that the time-table concerning the appointed days could be carried out by his Department.
The right hon. Gentleman has made some reference to the cost of living. For this purpose, I prefer to go back to the time when the index came into operation in January, 1947. As I said on Second Reading, there was no dispute about the percentage increases, and it was only the question of the dates upon which we did not secure unanimity. The Minister takes July, 1948, and, for my own purpose, I take January, 1947, and it is the case that, on the same basis as that upon which the Minister has based his remarks, the increase in the cost of living from that date until January of this year is one-third.
There is, however, another important factor in this connection. There are many things which people go without when they fall into adversity, but there are three things that are absolutely essential. The three basic commodities that I want to mention, and they are included in the index to which we have referred, are food, clothes, and fuel. Those are the three things which everybody requires, whether in prosperity or in adversity.
It is the case that, in these three commodities, from June, 1947, to January, 1952, there has been an increase of no less than 46 per cent. Food has increased more than clothing and fuel, but, putting all these together, the average increase is 46 per cent. With that thought in mind, I have felt, ever since I saw the Bill in print, that the proposals of the Minister respecting the improvements in the benefits only went some of the way, and not all the way, to meet the increase in the cost of living which has taken place.
Having now reached the Third Reading of this Bill, I must confess that I have a feeling of disappointment that we have not been successful in obtaining further improvements in these rates of benefit concerning both the benefits under the main scheme and those under the Industrial Injuries Act as well.
I have known the right hon. Gentleman a long time. My first happy experience of him was as far back as 1943, when we were discussing increasing the rates of workmen's compensation and introducing the new benefits scheme for pneumoconiosis, and. from that time until


now, the right hon. Gentleman has not been unresponsive. I do not think, however, that on this occasion he has been master in his own house, but that there has been behind him all the time what I may call the dead hand of the Treasury. We still believe that the proposals which we put forward for improvements in the rates of benefit could have been made, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to accept them.
I want to say a word or two on the constant attendance allowance. It will be within the recollection of the House that this is the only concession which the Minister made. There was a saying when I was a boy, which I commend to the Minister for his consideration, which ran, "Be thankful for small mercies, but take big ones if you can get them." We are glad that the Minister has found it possible to make this 25 per cent. increase in the constant attendance allowance. The people who need attendance by a diligent wife or mother or by a very close friend are all bad cases, and I am expressing not only my own pleasure, but I think the pleasure of hon. Members in all parts of the House, that the constant attendance allowance has been favourably reviewed and improved.
I share the regret of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that it has not been possible to increase in the same ratio as the other benefits, poor as that may be, the hardship allowance which means so much to those people who cannot return to their pre-accident work or to work of equivalent standing. We had a long discussion about this during the Committee stage. We shall have to leave it at that, but I hope that the Trades Union Congress, when the Minister meets them, will have something very significant to say on this particular point, and that, in the not too distant future, it will be possible for this special benefit to be reviewed more favourably than has been the case on this occasion.
There are only two other observations I wish to make. One concerns Clause 5 (2), dealing with what I would call the forgotten class for old age pensioners—the non-contributories. This situation has been in existence for more than 40 years; in fact, since 1908, and these people have

been subject to great fluctuations so far as the rates are concerned. During the Committee stage, the right hon. Gentleman said that the new rates embodied in this Bill are part of a balanced scheme for the improvement of almost every class of pensioner.
As far as I can see, in the light of that statement—and I leave it at this—the noncontributory pensioners have been left out in the cold. In 1946, their rates were increased two and a half times. Their benefit might be anything from a few shillings up to the maximum, and I could have wished that the Minister had included them. There are only 420,000 of them, and the cost, which I know falls directly on the Exchequer, is about—

Mr. Speaker: The House must remember that we are now on Third Reading and that the rules of order governing what one can refer to rather restrict the debate. I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of those rules.

Mr. Taylor: I shall not pursue the matter any further, Mr. Speaker, but I was anxious to include in this great human problem, so far as old-age pensions are concerned, this very small number of people.
Just a word about the administration. I can quite understand the anxiety of the Minister to get this Bill through in order to keep to his time-table. It is a big job. Those of us who have been at the Department know that this sort of thing cannot be done overnight. It is not done by batting the eye or rubbing the hand. It is a herculean task, and I wish the Minister and all members of his staff the best of good fortune and luck in this colossal undertaking.
The Ministry has an excellent staff both at headquarters and in the regions. I have visited all of them myself. There is an excellent body of people at the Record Office at Newcastle and in the nearly 1,000 local offices, and I am sure that the Minister, in his desire to keep to the time-table, will have their loyal co-operation. The passing of this Bill will be the signal for administrative action so that the improved benefits, as poor as we think they are, can be paid on the appointed days.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The principal Act of 1946 was one of which the then Minister the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and his Government could be proud. In the same way I think that today, even after making allowance for certain criticisms and the desire that there always is for more, the present Minister and his Government may justly be proud of this Bill. When we consider that, whether we like it or not, we are at present in a position of extreme financial stringency and peril the fact that almost £50 million is being devoted to increased benefits under the Bill is something very considerable.
The Minister quite rightly drew attention to the dangerous possibilities for the future, and I think that the simplified illustration drawn by him might, to some degree, serve a good purpose if it could be brought to the attention of every beneficiary under this Bill, and, indeed, to every citizen in this country. The effect would be even greater were it accompanied by a copy of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in a speech he made on the Committee stage of the Bill.
It is in that light that we can understand why the Minister was unable in some respects to concede additional benefits to certain classes whose cause we pleaded both on Second Reading and in Committee. As I said during those stages, I am an inveterate supporter of the class popularly known as the "10s. widows." Therefore, while I accept what the Minister has told us, and while I fully realise the dangerous position facing us, I hope that the Minister will bring that particular class of people to the notice of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, because I believe that they, possibly above all others, are entitled to some special consideration, not under this legislation, but from the Treasury. I think we should cordially support the Third Reading of the Bill.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I do not wish to be in any way ungenerous to the Minister—indeed, I am very happy that this Bill has been brought to its present stage at this time—but I would remind the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that it not only provides for

increased benefits, but also for increased payments, and that when we speak in terms of money approximately only one-seventh of the sum involved will be a contribution from the Treasury.

Mr. Peake: For the sake of accuracy, I think we ought to remember that the Bill includes family allowances as well as National Insurance benefits, and that the total outgoings under the Bill will be in excess of £100 million, of which over £60 million will be borne by the contributors.

Hubbard: I was dealing, of course, with the figures given by the Minister's hon. Friend.
This Bill, like al1 other Bills, is not perfect. Bearing in mind the position that is rapidly developing in the country, it can only be regarded as a stop-gap Measure to carry us over until 1954. Therefore, it is limited in its scope, and the time must come when some Government or other must consider the whole question of benefits and superannuation payments in relation to the increasing longevity of the people of this country.
Because of this fact, the figure mentioned by the Minister will become an ever increasing figure, and at some time or other the whole basis of insurance benefits and pensions will have to be altered. Therefore, although I welcome this Bill, and particularly its timing, I think that a great deal of serious thinking will have to be done in the interval so that we may ultimately have a pension scheme which will meet the needs of the future.
There are some features of the Bill which I like very much. I recall that I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and some other hon. Members, led a deputation of old-age pensioners to the Minister of National Insurance, in March last, when we stressed the differential rates of pensions paid to old-age pensioners. We pointed out that some of them who reached pensionable age after October, 1950, continued to receive only 26s. One of the good features of this Bill is that old-age pensioners no longer suffer these differential rates.
On the other hand, I suggest that it is not entirely equitable to say that an old-age pensioner or a person permanently unable to earn his livelihood is in the


same position as those temporarily incapacitated through sickness or those temporarily unemployed. Obviously, a person who has the benefit even of only this figure given in the Bill for a short period can rub along fairly well, but he will find it increasingly difficult to do so as month after month and year after year goes by, and I regret very much that something has not been done to see that those not in gainful occupation have a considerably increased allowance
.
On Third Reading it would be wrong of me to suggest any alteration in the figure, but I think I am entitled to call attention to the lowness of the figure as it applies in certain cases. I think that that must engage the attention of the Minister in the near future.
As to the assessment of the cost of living, not by any stretch of the imagination can it be said that an old age pensioners' cost of living scales are the same as those of someone in gainful occupation. The amount of things an old-age pensioner spends his money on—can spend his money on—is very limited. The cost of those commodities ought to be taken into account in assessing the cost of living of that type of person. The figure here does not differ very much from that which the right hon. Gentleman gave recently, and it is calculated that it is necessary to add 34s. 4d. to give to the pension the purchasing power it had in 1946.
The principle of insurance, of course, is one with the continuation of which we agree. It is a step forward. It must be that the strong must have some responsibility for the weak, that the healthy must have some responsibility for the unhealthy, and the young for the old. I say, looking back many years ago now to when the Poor Law system was in operation, as this Measure, consequent upon others, helps to dispel into the distance the ugly shadow of the Poor Law, that this is an occasion to rejoice.
When we think of the kind of life of the people this Bill is intended to benefit we must give praise to the Government for carrying on the good work started in 1946 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). The principle of his work is being carried on, and to that extent we feel very grateful indeed.
It has brought a new feature into everyday life and one that we must see is continued for as long as possible.
As time goes on there may—of course, there may not—be a further increase in the cost of living. I know it is very difficult to foretell the future, but we all realise that these figures are not high enough—certainly will not be high enough if the cost of living increases. So while I give praise for the Bill, I say emphatically that the figure mentioned here, particularly for those permanently unable to earn their livelihood in gainful occupation, is far too low. This causes considerable worry. Even though the Assistance Board can supplement even those payments, it does cause serious worry to see these figures fixed as they are at a time when things may become more difficult
.
Therefore I say bluntly that I am more than disappointed at the smallness of the figures as they apply particularly to people permanently unable to earn their incomes, but I am glad that, at least, something has been done, and I should like to congratulate the Minister on having got this Bill through quickly so that people should receive its benefits. They are already suffering from the effects of the Budget. This Measure will catch up with them in the very near future. The quicker the better. I join with the rest of the House in thanking the Minister for the Bill so far as it goes, with the reservation that I regret that the figure is not higher.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Summers: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) said what a good time was had on the Committee. I could not help reflecting that that immediately followed after congratulations on our trying to restrict the time of the Committee to the time originally intended. It seemed to me something of a paradox.
My right hon. Friend drew attention once again to the growing burdens in the years that lie ahead on the capacity to pay pensions consequent upon changes in the proportion of old people then to be found as compared with now. I very much welcome the announcement that a simple, graphic presentation of these facts will be given wide publicity in order that those whose duty is not normally to study


these matters may have them brought to their attention.
When this aspect of the subject was discussed on the Committee stage I personally, much regretted that those who showed willingness to make a realistic approach to the matter were regarded by some hon. Gentlemen opposite as lacking in humanitarian considerations. Some of us welcomed the candour and courage manifested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who makes such notable contributions to this subject. I hope that no one who has had the courage to warn Committees of this House or the public of what will be the projected effect of any change made now will, solely on that account, be accused of unreasonably twisting the facts and indicating a lack of human understanding of those who seek to benefit from schemes of this kind.
Unless we are realistic we shall not carry out the responsibility to the beneficiaries which it is our duty to do. Therefore, I hope that the deterioration which appeared to me to follow at one stage of our discussions will not be repeated in the future.
My right hon. Friend spoke of the review that is to be held in three years' time of these affairs, and I hope that he will take plenty of preparatory time to do justice to this very complicated situation. I have in mind particularly the need for far more knowledge than is now possessed of the effects of the incentives to postpone retirement which are inherent in this insurance scheme. We are woefully ignorant of how far the increased pension made possible by postponement influences people in deciding whether or not to postpone their retirement.
I hope that some steps will be taken before that annual review to try further to discover what actuates people to decide upon postponement. Such facts may take some time to collect. It may be necessary to compare different times of the year or different occupations and even different parts of the country. Therefore, I hope that the collection of any added data which might be put at the disposal of those carrying out the review will not be started too late and that the Minister will bear in mind the need to obtain the information well ahead of the time when the review is to take place.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) seemed to regret that one of the consequences of this Bill was to restore uniformity between rates of payment for pensions, sickness and unemployment. He seemed to be arguing that, though he might regard the new rates as perhaps tolerable for those whom I might call short-term cases, they were by no means satisfactory for those approaching the end of their days who would have to live for a long time on those pensions with such additional resources as they might possess.
I thought the hon. Member left out one very important factor, namely, the willingness and ability of many pensioners to supplement their pensions by part-time work. The encouragement to do so was increased not long ago by allowing a weekly income larger than that which prevailed previously to be earned without affecting the pension rates

Mr. Hubbard: I thought I mentioned those who are permanently unable to earn their livelihood and those who through sickness cannot do part-time work. There should be a differentiation between those unable to earn any additional income and those who might be able to take up a part-time occupation.

Mr. Summers: I do not desire to put ideas into the mind of the hon. Member that were not there before, and if I misinterpreted him I stand corrected. But I thought that in the context of his words it was only reasonable to point out the desire of many to add to their pensions by earnings. Those who have a long period of retirement before them can foresee that future and prepare to supplement their pensions. That, of course, is not the case with those receiving short-term sickness or unemployment benefit.
Without wanting to raise the temperature of this discussion I should like to draw attention to the marked contrast between the treatment of beneficiaries under this Bill and the treatment of beneficiaries when this subject was dealt with by the former Government when they were concerned only with pensioners.

Mr. B. Taylor: And widowed mothers.

Mr. Summers: Despite the undoubtedly increased financial stringency which the present Government inherited from the former Government, it has been


found possible not merely to increase benefits to pensioners but also to those who are casualties through sickness and unemployment. Many hon. Members will recall the first solution the former Government put before the House, namely, that increased pensions should only be given at age 70 and not at 65.
As a result of what one can only regard as a well-intentioned rebellion, the then Front Bench were induced to grant the pensions on a uniform basis, except for the material distinction that one had to be born before 1st October 65 years ago to benefit. If one was unfortunate enough to have been born a day later one could not receive the benefit for another five years. In view of the increased numbers who would have suffered from that anomaly it is very gratifying that the Minister has found it possible to make the system uniform.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If I may be allowed to say so, I was the creator of uniformity. When the Coalition Government brought forward their first scales there was no uniformity. They proposed a lower rate for old age pensioners than for sickness and unemployment benefit. The conversion of hon. Members opposite to uniformity did not take place so long ago.

Mr. Summers: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make amends for the shortcomings of his successor, the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill).
I am talking about the predecessor of the present Minister and of the satisfaction many must have felt at the fact that the anomaly his predecessor created has now been abolished. I think we are entitled to remind all beneficiaries under this scheme that thanks to the humanitarian considerations that actuated this Government we have found it possible to restore uniformity of rates and, what is even more important, to restore the purchasing power of the pensions to what it was when the scheme was started in 1948.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: I am delighted to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), who has always taken a keen interest in social welfare, particularly that of old

people. His interest is always manifest when we are discussing their conditions. I am glad that he has referred to the rebellion which took place when there was a decision to alter the retirement age. I must say, with all modesty, that I was one of the rebels. I make no apology for the fact. I thank the Minister for restoring once again the uniform pension rates so far as age is concerned.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury also referred to the importance of old-age pensioners seeking part-time work to supplement their meagre incomes. I entirely agree with him, subject to certain reservations, subject for instance to the man or woman being physically capable of taking part-time work. I have discovered in this connection an astonishing thing, which will have to be thrashed out on the Floor of the House. Within recent weeks a number of nationalised industries have discharged men aged 65 who are physically fully capable of continuing work. It is manifestly unfair of us to say to old age pensioners. "You have an opportunity of supplementing your income" if employers do not help by allowing them to continue to work.

Mr. Summers: Would the hon. Member help the House by saying whether, in the cases he has in mind in the nationalised industries, the men concerned were operatives or employed on the staff?

Mr. Brown: No, I am not talking about staff, I am talking about men on the production side. I cannot talk about women because they do not work in the pits, but when a man reaches 65 and is physically capable of working and desires to continue to work and to produce a commodity so essential to the nation that man should be afforded the opportunity of doing so.
I agree with one or two of the opening remarks of the Minister. The first thing upon which I should like to congratulate him is the brevity of his speech. Such brevity gives ordinary back benchers the opportunity to have their little say whether they are odd fellows or in the "Army."
I agree with him that there is no change in the structure of this Bill as compared to the original Bill. He went on to say that the intention of the Bill was to restore the purchasing power to that of 1948. On that point, I entirely and most


emphatically disagree with him. In my opinion, if there were a close analysis of the real cost-of-living figures from 1948 to 22nd April, 1952, the cost-of-living index figure would prove to be wrong. I have no patience with the present cost-of-living figure; not because it acts against me or my people but because I think it does not give a true picture of the rise in the cost of living since 1948.
The Minister went on to say that he was following the examples of his two predecessors. If I understand the evolution of progress correctly, we ought to go a lot further than those who have preceded us, otherwise we are not playing our part in this world.
There was another point which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, upon which I wish to dwell for a moment because it is a matter of paramount importance to our people and to the whole scheme. He said there will have to be some hard thinking between now and 1954. I whole-heartedly agree with him, and I re-echo and reinforce the words of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) when he said that he hoped that the review would not be put off until 1954. The review ought to begin immediately, or as soon as possible, so that those who are charged with the responsibility of reviewing the social insurance schemes will not be hurried and frustrated by trying to get out the report too early.
I should like to make a suggestion. I say this with all respect to the administrative side, and to the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. Before it is decided what should or should not be done in connection with the rates of benefits, etc., in the social insurance scheme, I think there should be a survey taken and that it should be done by visiting the homes of some of our old and sick people.
It is a remarkable fact, as shown by the report entitled "Poverty and Progress" by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree in connection with the social survey which he made in York, that every case has moved in an upward direction except that of the old-age pensioner, which has stood still. That is a remarkable fact, and no hon. or right hon. Member can dispute the very close and minute work that was undertaken in that social survey.
We shall never get a real picture of the conditions of our people—I am speaking about the industrial areas at the moment—unless we are prepared to visit the villages and homes in which they live and to understand the conditions under which they are existing. As I said in the House a few weeks ago, the only way that we can get to know what the people are going through is to sit where they are sitting. We need not live with them, but sit where they are sitting and, when we have done that, even for a week, we shall have a loftier conception of what those people require. I hope, therefore, that in the review between now and 1954 the Minister will give some consideration to that suggestion.
There is another thing about which I am very much disturbed. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has left the Chamber—perhaps he has some other business to attend to. He referred, both on Second Reading and in Committee to the widow's pension—what he called the 10s. pension. I think that the Minister ought to have responded to the pleas from his side of the House. In the Committee stage, as everybody who was on that Committee knows, we did our best to get him to move in the direction of improving the conditions of the non-contributory pensioner. That point was mentioned today by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), when he said that there were only about 420,000 of them. A number of those pensioners require some attention and I hope that they will not be overlooked within the next few months.
I think we are all agreed, as we were agreed in the Committee, that the Bill which is now before the House deals with the unfortunate section of our people. It deals with the sick, the aged, the infirm, the injured and the unemployed. Since the Bill was printed, on 22nd April, 1952, it has become out of date. Circumstances are changing rapidly, particularly so in the case of the cost of living, and the benefits that were fixed in April, 1952, will not meet the needs of our people.
It is not my intention to go over the points which I enumerated in Committee, but I ask the Department to consider, between now and the next time we deal with this subject, not only the increased cost of living as it is then presented but the potential increase, so that they may


arrive at a rate of benefit which is satisfactory to all concerned.
Not only has the cost of living figure risen—and I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman; as I said before, it was due to world conditions, over which the Government have no control—but another factor is looming up, particularly in the textile industry of Lancashire and the cotton and woollen mills of Yorkshire. There is a vast increase in the unemployment figures, week after week, and last week we felt the repercussions of unemployment in the cotton textile industry of Lancashire. Now we are faced with a vast number of unemployed, in other industries and they will not be satisfied with the rates of benefit which are contained in this Bill.

Mr. Summers: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously arguing that the rate of unemployment benefit should be higher if there is a great number of unemployed people than if there is only a modest number?

Mr. Brown: I am not arguing any such thing. Whether there are thousands, or hundreds of thousands of unemployed, the point I am seeking to advance, with all sincerity—and I may be wrong, as I usually am—is that if people are thrown out of work, due to no fault of their own, the unemployment benefits which they receive should be adequate to meet the cost of living. That is my opinion, whether there are 1,000 or one million unemployed.
I want now to deal with the question of the injured workman. The Minister, during the Committee stage, referred to Command Paper 6551, which was published in 1944. I looked that up to see whether I could secure some advice or assistance because, to quite a large extent, the Minister played an important part in the presentation of that Command Paper. It says, about disablement pensions—and I quote with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House:
Where the disablement is likely to he permanent or prolonged, the injury allowance will be replaced by an industrial pension based on the degree of disablement caused by the injury as assessed by the medical board. An industrial pension will, unless the workman's condition permits of a final assessment of the extent of the disablement, be awarded on a temporary basis until a final assessment can be made. If at any time a workman ceases to be incapacitated for work but still suffers some disablement on account of the injury,

he will be entitled to apply for a pension to be assessed forthwith.
It continues—and this is the salient point:
The rate of pension proposed where the degree of disablement due to the injury is assessed at 100 per cent. will be 40s. weekly.
That figure was fixed in 1944. This Bill fixes the figure at 55s.—an increase of 15s. in eight years. Surely the right hon. Gentleman sees the force of the argument which we advanced when we moved our Amendment in Committee, when we desired to raise the rate to 60s. Had he accepted our Amendment it would have gone a long way to eliminate the dissatisfaction which is now permeating the minds of hon. Members on this side of the House, and particularly those who represent mining areas because after all, the incidence of accidents in the mines is higher than in other industries.
That is why we are so anxious that when the rates are fixed for personal injuries they should be the highest possible that can be afforded by the Personal Injuries Fund. From my own observations, I think the right hon. Gentleman could have increased the disablement benefits and hardship allowance benefits without encroaching on the fund to any large extent, because there is sufficient in the fund without impairing its solvency.
A number of us advocated in Committee that he should take a risk by accepting the Amendment which stood in the names of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends so that these people should not be in dire need between now and the date upon which the review will take place. He could have done that without upsetting the financial solvency of the fund, in my view. There are two funds in connection with the insurance scheme—there is the National Insurance Fund and there is the National Insurance Reserve Fund. To the credit of the first fund, on 31st March, 1951—not 1952—there was £479,490,497. In the Reserve Fund there was £786,570,640. If we tot the two together, it amounts to the largest sum ever accumulated in any insurance fund in the history of this country—£1,266,001,141. The interest alone on these two sums amounts to £31,990,382. I say, therefore, that the Minister could have made some of the concessions which we requested during the Committee stage and still not have impaired the solvency for a period of two years, between now and 1954.
It is a crime, in my view, for any fund to be reaching bursting point while, at the same time, people are living in dire need and dire poverty. I think that by careful administration we could have taken something from the fund and given it to the people who have paid into the fund.
I am convinced that the slight advancement which is conceded by an increase in the basic rate for old-age pensioners will not bring contentment into their lives. We tried in our humble way, and very reasonable way, to improve the position. We responded to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary to assist in every conceivable way to help the passing of the Bill this week. He has said, "Thank you," but I am very much afraid that if a similar appeal is made on a subsequent occasion, in view of the meagre concessions which he has made we shall not respond quite so readily as we did during the four Sittings on the 13th, 15th, 20th and 22nd of May.
It is all very well for Ministers of Departments and Parliamentary Secretaries to plead with us to help them in every possible way. We are not unreasonable. But we have to pay due regard to the essential needs of the people we represent and, as long as I remain in the House and have an opportunity to raise my voice, I shall raise it if I think that some of the benefits which are to be conceded do not meet the needs of our people.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. C. J M. Alport: I join with hon. Members on both sides in congratulating the Minister on reaching this final stage of the Bill in this Chamber. The Bill is welcome because it will bring help to those who are in need at present and who are perhaps hardest hit of all by the continuing rise in the cost of living. I use the word "continuing" because it has become almost a habit over the last six years, but the truth of the matter is that at present we are in the process of seeing what we believe and hope may be a gradual levelling out of that long process. We must consider the Bill against that background.
I want to make two points. First, this is a very considerable Bill which makes

a great advance for a number of categories of pensioners, and those in receipt of benefits, who have not been assisted in this way since 1948. We must not in any way under-estimate the important social advance which this piece of legislation represents. I realise that hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), are bound to use certain adjectives about the Bill which appear ungenerous in themselves, but I am sure they realise, as we do on this side of the House, that this is a very considerable contribution, in view of the economic circumstances of the country, to deal with the problem of need.
I think hon. Members on both sides will agree that it would be wrong if we allowed the Bill to go forward giving the impression, particularly to the old-age pensioners who are to benefit from it, that we consider the benefit which they will receive provides, at the present cost of living, a minimum standard of living such as was envisaged in 1946, when the new schemes were first discussed.
The hon. Member for Ince said he thought that it was time we had a survey of need. I, in a small way, in my own constituency, in March, with the assistance of nine old-age pensioners, took a survey which, although I do not claim that it represents with deadly accuracy the problem, at any rate gave me an idea of the situation with which we are faced. I came to the conclusion as a result of the figures given to me, and which, I know, were given in good faith by those who collaborated in the scheme, that the absolute minimum for the single old-age pensioner is something like 46s. a week and for a married couple 68s. 6d., assuming the rent, which is included, to be 9s. or 10s. a week.

Mr. B. Taylor: What would be the average rent in the particular area to which the hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. Alport: I said that it is about 9s. or 10s. a week. I do not claim that these figures give more than an indication to me of the problem with which we are dealing.
Therefore, we have reached a point where there is a divergence from the conception of National Insurance as it was at the time of the Beveridge Report and at the time of the initiation of the original scheme. It is a divergence in that the


benefits received now by the old-age pensioners are not providing a minimum standard of living in accordance with the minimum standard which we conceive to be reasonable at the present stage of our economy.
That means that the benefit must be supplemented in one of three ways: either by additional earnings, or out of savings, or as a result of National Assistance. I would say that the conditions proposed in the Amendment which was put forward in Committee by the party opposite would scarcely go any further in meeting the gap which undoubtedly exists; and, therefore, I do not consider that the proposals that came from the party opposite—and I am not putting this in any controversial way—were more than a part of the inevitable Dutch auction which so often takes place in these cases. There may be some statistical basis which could be advanced for the proposals, but I do not think that they would meet the gap at all effectively. Under the proposals which they advanced on the Committee stage, the old-age pensioner would still have to supplement the income he derived from his benefit in one of the three ways I have mentioned.
We are determined, I think, on both sides of the House, to ensure a minimum standard of living for all pensioners in this country, but we have to face the fact that the present way in which that is done, so far as the old people are concerned, is either by extra earnings, or out of savings, or by resort to National Assistance. The argument which the hon. Member for Ince and many of his colleagues have advanced is that by raiding the funds it should be possible to bridge the gap between the benefit and the minimum requirement.
The level of benefit has a direct effect on the cost of living. This is not the place to argue that in detail, but I think that the further we put the level of benefit up the more unlikely it is that we will be able to bring the cost of living down so far as one would like to see it brought down.
I believe that we have to take a very responsible decision at the moment in the hope and belief, as we do hope and believe on this side of the House, that the cost of living will slowly start to come

down during the months ahead of us. We have to rely on the three means which I have mentioned to bridge the gap between benefit and need until we can bring the cost of living down, so that the gap no longer exists.
I believe that, in the long run, that will be more satisfactory and more in the interests of the old people generally and indeed in the interests of those in receipt of benefits generally or who are dependent on fixed income of various sorts than by suddenly trying to chase the rising cost of living, with the result that we gradually push it further out of our reach. That is an argument which I believe fully justifies the Minister and the Government in the decisions which they have reached on the level of benefit.
It is quite clear to me that on both sides of the House we sympathise with the problem which I have called the gap, but I think it is in the interest of those in receipt of benefit that we should not take a step which will react upon the level of the cost of living and prevent us from doing what we have wanted to do since 1945, and that is to ensure that as a result of payments made into the Insurance Fund, the person who falls into need through age, unemployment or sickness can look forward to being able to derive as a result of those payments, as a right, the minimum standard of living which we believe to be so necessary for the people of this country.
We on this side of the House believe—and I hope that view is shared by hon. Members opposite who have contributed to this debate—that this is a fine, constructive piece of social legislation which will do much to meet the difficulties of those of our fellow citizens who stand in need at the present moment, and we believe that it stands to the greatest credit of the Minister and the Government which we support.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: I do not intend to keep the House for more than a few minutes, because this Bill was debated very thoroughly on Second Reading and on the Report stage.
I would, at the outset, thank the right hon. Gentleman for at least making one concession by way of constant attendance allowance. It is, of course, appreciated that those who will become


entitled to constant attendance allowance are the seriously incapacitated men, who come under the Industrial Injuries Act. That concession will perhaps lessen the hardship suffered by those men, particularly in the mining areas, who have received substantial injuries and who are bedridden as a result of accidents sustained in the course of their employment.
At the same time, I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension about the disappointment which will be felt by industrially disabled men at this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, and I regret that I have to say it now, despite all our efforts in Committee, the 10s. a week increase in the basic benefit for the industrially disabled will not mean much to the vast majority of disabled. It is a very small minority of permanently disabled men who will get the 10s. a week increase. It is only those who have lost two limbs or who are otherwise seriously disabled who will be entitled to the increase of 10s. The bulk of those pensioners who have been receiving 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. disablement pensions will receive an incerase of only 2s. or 3s. a week. Miners, in particular, will be very disappointed with these proposals, in view of the hardship which is suffered from the loss of their employment.
The right hon. Gentleman could have increased the basic pension to allow more for the partially disabled or he could have increased the hardship allowance. I still fail to understand why he has not made a concession by way of an increase in the hardship allowance. If it had been increased even to 10s. it would have been some compensation to those receiving a pension for less than 100 per cent. disablement.
We met the right hon. Gentleman in 1943 when we discussed the increase in wages and in the cost of living which had taken place as a result of the war. Under the old Workmen's Compensation Act a man was tied to his pre-accident wages. Before the war a man might have been earning only £3 or £4 per week and he might, following an accident, be doing a light job at £5 a week found for him by his employer, but he would still be tied to his pre-accident wages. When this was put to the right hon. Gentleman in 1943 he said that he would have a Section inserted in the 1943 Act to ensure that an injured man would be able to have a

review of his pre-accident wages and to say, for example, "I was earning £4 a week in 1939. If it had not been for my accident I should now be getting £7 a week." If this pre-accident salary was then regarded as £7 and he had a light job which brought him in £5 a week, he would become entitled to half the difference between the two figures.
The hardship allowance was put into the industrial injuries scheme to compensate a man for the loss of earning capacity. It was fixed at a maximum of £1 a week. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to increase it. If he had done so he would have put the partially disabled man more on a par with men coming under the old workmen's compensation scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Industrial Injuries Act came into operation in 1948, but the rates were fixed in 1946, and the cost of living has risen by 40 per cent. since then and his proposals do not meet that rise. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said that the Government had increased unemployment and sickness benefits and retirement pensions to a greater extent than the Labour Government did, but I understood that the Chancellor's proposals were to compensate people on pensions and low income rates for the reduction in food subsidies. I can say from my experience that in many respects the Chancellor's proposals do not do so.
The National Insurance scheme is losing its significance and effectiveness because the benefit rates will be lower under this Bill than are the National Assistance rates. It discourages people from contributing when they see that their contributions will bring them benefits which are less than the National Assistance benefits. When we embarked upon the scheme in 1948 the National Assistance rates were slightly lower than the National Insurance benefits, and I hope that the Government will bear in mind in any review of the matter that insurance benefits should be equal to the National Assistance rate, particularly when men are called upon to contribute towards the National Insurance scheme.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I take it that my hon. Friend is not arguing that the National Assistance scales are too high. Is he


arguing that, as this is an insurance fund, unless bigger contributions are paid, greater financial assistance must come from the Exchequer?

Mr. Finch: I am not arguing that they are too high. I was saying that the benefits paid under a contributory scheme should be equal to the National Assistance benefits, and I hope the Government will bear that in mind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): On Third Reading we can discuss only what is in the Bill, and not what we should like to have in it.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I am surprised that in estimating the increased benefits required to meet the rise in the cost of living the 1948 basis has been taken for purposes of comparison. It is strange that that should be so. The family allowances were fixed in 1945, old-age pensions were increased in 1946 and the National Insurance Act was passed in 1946. The fact that a large portion of the National Insurance Act was implemented in 1948 does not imply that we should make a comparison with 1948 when considering benefits arising out of the Act of 1946.
In our discussions on the National Insurance Bill in 1945 and 1946, we related the benefits to the conditions which existed then, and thus they were conditioned and influenced by the cost of living and the wages of the workers in 1946. It is amazing that, in reviewing the benefits, we should take as our basis for comparison 1948 instead of 1946.
The cost of living has risen by 44 per cent. since 1946. Bearing that in mind, we must consider what we are doing in relation to the real cost of living. While cost of living indexes indicate the cost of living on a given basis, very few hon. Members believe that they indicate the actual cost of living. In the trade union movement or in politics, when we cannot get the increased benefits which it is considered fairly meet the circumstances we take what we can get. When we do so we do not want to create the impression that, because we are not dividing against the Bill, we are satisfied in any respect with it. We are dissatisfied, and we

must represent to this House the feelings, desires and reactions of our people to it. That is why we must register our protest.
Let us analyse the position. Pensions are now being increased to 54s., and, taking 1946 as the year of real comparison, the amount should be 60s. 6d. instead of 54s. In other words, the new rate is 6s. 6d. below the level of the cost of living today. A single man is to get 32s. but if we add the 44 per cent. he should be getting 37s. 6d., so that the amount is 5s. 6d. less than the cost of living level.
I want now to deal with the question of the men who are injured while at their work. The men and women in the country who are producing its wealth by their labour are doing a national service, and when they are injured at work we expect them to be compensated on a level which corresponds somewhere near to the cost of living and bears a relationship to the wages which they can make. We have not made much progress from the past in this direction.
Let us take 1938, a pre-war year, and compare it with today. Then a single man got 30s. compensation. He paid no contribution towards that, nor did the Exchequer make any substantial grant. Since 1938 the cost of living has advanced 120 per cent., so that instead of the 30s. she should now be getting 66s. What are we offering him in this Bill? He is to be given 66s. which is 11s. less purchasing power than he was getting in 1938 when the State did not help at all.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the contribution should be equally increased?

Mr. McKay: That is one of the problems which have to be faced on this issue.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Let us have the answer.

Mr. McKay: The main point we have to decide is: should we give these men and women, who are producing the wealth of the country and who have been disabled in discharging that task, a sufficient sum to enable them to live properly? Are they not entitled to a reasonable amount to enable them to


live properly during the time of their disablement? Whatever differences there may be in politics generally, this is a matter which we should approach on the basis of the greatest good for those who are disabled, and they should be guaranteed an income that is sufficient to keep them and their families in reasonable decency.
Since 1938 there have been great changes in the organisation of this scheme. Money from the State is going into the fund and there are other sources of contribution, yet we are not bringing the amount given to the single man into line with what, in purchasing power, was its equivalent in 1938. A single man got 30s. in 1938, and today he should be getting 66s., but instead we are giving him 11 s. less. In 1943, a single man got 40s. compensation. Since then the cost of living has advanced by at least 54 per cent.
If hon. Members do not accept that figure, they can take the figure published in any of the indexes, including that for London, the Institution Index or the Ministry of Labour Index. I think they will find that the cost of living has gone up 54 per cent. To have a sum equivalent to the purchasing power of 40s. in 1943, the injured man should be receiving 61s. 6d. What he is offered under this Bill is 55s., or 6s. 6d. short.
I want to turn now to the question of the earning capacity of our people, and I will take an average figure. We can only take averages in a matter of this kind. Last October the Ministry of Labour stated that the average wage for a man in this country was £8 6s. a week. It is safe to say that since then it has gone up 4s., and the sum today is at least £8 10s. I would emphasise that that is an average for the workers from all over the country. We are telling the average workman that while he is earning that money at work, if he should be injured and is a single man, the most we are prepared to give him to enable him to live is £2 15s. instead of £8 10s. Is that reasonable? To me it is not. I do not think it is anything to be proud of in these difficult days.
In spite of the fact that these people are contributing towards the compensation, and also that there are contributions from employers and the Exchequer, we are telling the workers that we are not

prepared to offer more than 55s. a week on an average wage of £8 10s. To me that is not a fair crack of the whip for the people who are doing such a magnificent job in the country, and who are going all out to increase our exports so that this country can get on its feet. When the people have time to analyse the new rates of benefit contained in this Bill, they will see that they come far short of what is needed in these days when the cost of living is rising, and the T.U.C. on their behalf will have every right to show their dissatisfaction with the Measure.
Since I came to this House I have heard a great deal about what one party did when in power and then what the other did. It is not a good argument in a matter of this kind to play the game of party politics. There has been reference today to the fact that the Labour Government differentiated between rates of pension. To my mind the Labour Party were wrong when they agreed to that, and I am glad that the Conservative Party have had a bit of sense and have restored the rate to what it was so that all are now alike. We should discuss this problem as it is related to the world in which we are now living. A pension of 55s. to a single man and £3 6s. to a married man is not helping these people very much at a time when they need money most.
Whatever side of the House we are on, I do not see that we can take any pride or satisfaction in this Measure. It is not a satisfactory Bill for the times in which we live. The Conservative Party said they would take off food subsidies and put something on to the family allowance so that people would get the benefit, but they leave the position where it is in respect of the first child, while increasing the 5s. to 8s. for the other children.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think there is anything about food subsidies in the Bill.

Mr. McKay: All right, Sir Charles. I will keep that out of the argument. We must deal with the cost of living. The Bill is framed to meet the so-called cost of living, by means of increased family allowances. What the Government said sounded reasonable, but it would have been more reasonable to deviate from the principle followed in the past.
The Government know that removal of the food subsidies places a penalty upon the family with one child as well as upon the family with more than one child. When increasing the family allowances in order to meet the cost of living arising out of the removal of food subsidies, it would have been logical for them to recognise that, according to the Chancellor's own statement, the married man with only one child suffers a penalty of at least 4s. 6d. but they gave nothing to that family.
The family with one child has as much right to recognition as the family with two or more children. To deal justly and fairly the Government ought to have given something for the first child. We have been told that that would have increased the cost of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very reluctant to stop the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that he can only deal with what is in the Bill. The debate on Third Reading is very narrow and is limited to matters contained in the Bill.

Mr. McKay: I thought the family allowances were in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not to the extent that the hon. Gentleman was developing them.

Mr. McKay: I do not quite understand what the limit is, so perhaps you will keep me within the limit as I go on. I shall not be very long.
A good deal of interest has been shown in this House in the position of the one-child family. I have analysed the position as best I can by figures obtained from the annual Inland Revenue returns. I find that there are more than 3 million families with only one child, 3 million families who have had their cost of living increased and are getting no help at all. Their purchasing power has been reduced by 4s. 6d.
I do not want to prolong this speech, but I emphasise the point that the amount of family allowance should have been arranged so that the one-child family would get something. How could it have been done? If we had given the first child 3s., the second child 5s., and subsequent children 8s., families with two or more children would have got exactly the same as is provided by the Bill, but

we should be giving 3s. in respect of the first child.
We are not prepared to divide on this matter, but we do not want to get the word spread that we are satisfied with the Bill. It is not satisfactory to people injured or to aged pensioners. However big that problem may be—and it is a big problem, as most people realise—we have to get together. Perhaps in the future we can co-operate in some united solution and present it to the public at large. Probably the only way we can deal with it is by united effort by both parts of this House.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: One remarkable thing about the Bill is that everybody agrees with it, but we go on talking about it. Nevertheless, it is just as well that, we thus testify whatever our politics and political outlook, that we now accept the principle of mutual responsibility for those who are stricken, ailing or aged or who in any way need our support.
Although the Bill goes some way to meet the increased cost of living it does not go far enough. I entirely agree with previous speakers, who have suggested that whatever may be the indices upon which these increased allowances are based they are out of true relationship to the actual increases being experienced today. For instance, we all know that fares have gone up substantially. Quite a number of old-age pensioners will be hard hit by that fact alone. The old-age pensioners in my district complain very bitterly that in spite of the anticipated increase in pension rates, they will be unable adequately to meet all their daily needs. We should therefore take the Bill mainly as an instalment of what is, after all, social justice to a large section of our community.
We are involved in far more than we know. We are involved in the steady transformation of moral and social responsibility. There was a time when the family was looked upon as the unit of moral responsibility. It is so in many parts of the world, in India and other areas, where no Bills of this kind exist, where there is no insurance system, and where whoever is ailing is assisted by the rest of the family. So it was in this country at one time. but that has steadily


changed, and in place of family responsibility we are establishing the principle of social responsibility. Whether it is good or not, we cannot stop it, and both sides of the House are involved in the process.
Logically, therefore, there will be ever increasing communal responsibility for all human beings. For instance, if we recognise the principle of equal pay it is bound to have an effect upon the Clauses of a Bill of this character. This Bill does not suggest that there shall be increases in rates so that men and women receive the same amount of benefit. Yet I would not mind prophesying that the day will come, whatever Government is in power, when we shall recognise, in regard to rates of benefit, the same principle which has now been accepted by the Government in regard to rates of pay for those employed in education and in the Civil Service.
I mention this to show that this Bill is only one small part of a new social relationship which we are all engaged in building. Some progress has been made. At one time many members of the party opposite would have criticised what is now taking place. So we can now rejoice that we all learn by experience and have come to the same conclusion, namely, that both sides of the House have now accepted this Socialist principle of responsibility for each other. All that remains to be done—I wish the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), would be quiet, or speak up so that we can hear.

Sir Herbert Williams: I was only talking about what happened in the days of Queen Elizabeth. [Laughter.]

Mr. Sorensen: Hon. Members may laugh, but that is a fairly sensible criterion of behaviour. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for being distracted from what I was trying to say.
I was saying that we are now involved in building up a new social relationship which inevitably will involve us in much more than we have recognised up to the present. I have mentioned the principle of equality of benefit, and I venture again to suggest that in time that will be embodied in a statute as, apparently, we are to embody it in regard to payment for services rendered.
There is another aspect which deserves attention and which is involved in what

we are discussing. I refer to the ever-increasing financial burden on the community which this insurance responsibility, is bound to impose. We are living longer today than our ancestors. As we plan our society more and more sanely, so inevitably the proportion of those who will come under such a Bill as this, and who will receive benefit, will be much greater than it is today.
That cannot go on unless at the same time the productive power of the community increases to the same extent, for, otherwise, we shall have a top-heavy society. I believe that we can get that increase if we can induce in our people a recognition that, as we alter society to accept responsibility for the well-being of each other, equally we have to pour more into society to counterbalance what we take out.
I believe that this extension of the existing principle will go some way not only towards giving more benefits to those who need them, but also towards increasing the sense of obligation to render more to society. Unless that is done, there will come a time when we shall expect to take more and more out of the common till without any obligation to put more in. The principle implemented in this Bill is one way by which we can induce a deeper sense of deeper responsibility on the part of all members of society. If we can make each one feel that we are now so organised, morally and socially, that, no matter who is sick or aged, the rest of us will see that he does not suffer, it will give a greater sense of dignity to every member of the community, a deeper sense of belonging to it, which will induce every member of the community to render still greater service than he may have done hitherto.
There are about 2,000 elderly people in my constituency who belong to the Old Age Pensioners' Association. I see they are demanding a payment of 50s. for every single person, male or female, and £5 for a married couple. We may have some way to go before that is achieved. It may seem extravagant, although I do not think so. It may or may not be the case that today it cannot be afforded. In view of so much other expenditure. I would say that argument is hardly tenable, and in view of what an hon. Member opposite said earlier this afternoon, his figures indicated that £5 a week in none too much for an elderly married couple
Logically, this Bill involves us in going Forward to the time when full responsibility for the aged will be recognised. That may be some time ahead, but let us hasten the day because, in so doing, we shall be able to complete the weaving of this new moral pattern which will take the place of the old domestic or family pattern, by which we recognise that we are all truly members one of another. Thereby it will be left not to the segregated family, but to all members of society, to decide how best to meet the pressing needs of all who belong to society.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Perhaps I should explain why I am intervening in this debate, although I did not take part in the Second Reading debate, nor was I privileged to serve on the Committee. During the Committee stage my hon. Friends co-operated with the Minister in getting this Bill through as quickly as possible so that administrative action can be taken quickly to bring these benefits into operation. My hon. Friends today have put the case of the inadequacy of these benefits as strongly as they did before, and I only want to add that they have made out their case fully today as I am sure they did in Committee.
I want to comment on what the Minister said in his opening speech this afternoon. Within a few months it will be 10 years since the Beveridge Report was published, for it was published in November, 1942. So this is the tenth year in which we have discussed proposals and reports and White Papers and Bills and amending Bills upon this problem of National Insurance.
It fell to the right hon. Gentleman to play a notable part in the preparation of the early White Papers in 1944, particularly the one called "Social Insurance Part II," outlining the new scheme which eventually became the Industrial Injuries Act. Later it was my great privilege to pilot through the House the Industrial Injuries Bill and the National Insurance Bill and to bring into operation the payments under the Family Allowances Act.
Since 1946 we have had two interim Measures. It is quite clear that the Bill which was passed by my own Government last year and the Bill which is now before the House to which we shall today give

a unanimous Third Reading, are interim Measures. We are all at one in that the purpose of all the various schemes is to establish and make operative the principle of a national minimum payment.
The subject has a longer history even than the Beveridge Report. The first time the idea was put forward that the nation should accept it as an obligation and a responsibility to lay down a national minimum below which no one in adversity would be allowed to fall. was as far back as 1909, by the Webbs—Sidney and Beatrice Webb—in the Poor Law Commission Report. Later Sir William, now Lord, Beveridge brought, his scheme before us, and now the Bill amends the rates of benefit and contributions.
The fact that the various Bills have been interim Measures is borne out by the provision which was made in the 1946 Act for a quinquennial review. After a period of five years, a review is obligatory. The right hon. Gentleman will know, however, that the Minister and the Government are at liberty to call for an earlier review. The report of the actuary on the Bill indicates that we shall obtain a good deal of information from last year's census when time is available to extract information about population, occupations and various other aspects.
I do not know how soon that information will be forthcoming, but I urge upon the Minister that there is a good case for having a review now, otherwise we shall be having a series of interim Measures. You have ruled, quite rightly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we cannot argue now about food subsidies and the rest, but let me say that if the cost of living continues to rise we shall in a very short time be faced inevitably with another interim Measure. Therefore, since we have already had two interim Measures and may yet have another, the time has come for us now to hold the review which normally would be due after five years' working of the scheme. When the census information is available the Minister will have all the information that he wants to enable him to conduct the review.
There are, of course, many problems. There is the problem of the relationship of benefit rates to assistance scales, to which my hon. Friends have referred.


There is the problem of old age. When we began the scheme we realised that to make provision for the aged was one of the most difficult problems of all.
When Sir William Beveridge, as he was, made his proposals to the Government, he suggested, and, indeed, recommended, that benefits should be at a given rate during sickness and unemployment, and he spoke in favour of eventual uniformity for all benefits, including old age pensions. He suggested that because of the burden of old age, the new scheme should provide for an increase in the old rate of 10s. a week to 24s. and 40s. by instalments over a period of 20 years. He made that suggestion because he was concerned about the burden of the increasing number of people at the existing pensionable ages upon the fund.
In 1946, however, we decided to establish the principle of uniformity and to put the pensions at the same rates as sickness and unemployment benefits. That step was in conformity with the opinion both of the House and of the country. We not only raised the pension rates and put them on the same scale as sickness and unemployment benefit, but we began to pay the new pension rates to the old people only two years before the new scheme came into operation in 1948. The conscience of the country had been stirred, and we felt that something should be done quickly for the aged people.
Lord Beveridge had recommended that there should be an inducement to people who reach retiring age—65 for men and 60 for women—to continue at work. Lord Beveridge suggested the increment system. I doubled that increment in the 1946 Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) doubled it again last year. The rate of increment has been increased, as have the figures for permissible earnings. Until we have any further precise information on the whole problem, it is clearly in the interests of everybody concerned that these inducements should be as effective as possible.
I join with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) in saying that it is most desirable that the Minister and his Department should consider the matter of inducements. The information which the census should make available will be necessary for the Minister when next the House reviews this matter. The

House will need that information on the effectiveness of the inducements, both by way of increments and by the operation of the earnings rule.
I ask the Minister whether he is yet in a position to give any further information of the proportion of people who remain at work when they reach retirement age. Is the experience of four year's working of the Act sufficient to show that the increment is a successful inducement?

Mr. Summers: I am glad to have the right hon. Member's support for more data. The point I wanted to make was that the figures gained from the working of the scheme would not reveal whether any effective results which might have been obtained were due to the scheme itself, or to the desires of the people. It was in that connection that I wanted further details.

Mr. Griffiths: We have available the service of the social survey, which could be of immense help, and I ask the Minister whether there should not be a comprehensive examination of the problem by those who are skilled in the technique of the social survey in order to find out from actual experience, of a wide and comprehensive nature, exactly how effective the inducements to remain at work are proving.
I would suggest that the local advisory committees which have been set up all over the country should be asked by the Minister to study this problem in the light of their local experience. On those committees are representatives of the employers, trade unions and friendly societies, and I am sure that their contribution would be of value.
There is the question of the amount which pensioners are permitted to earn. One thing has been represented strongly to us. What we have done up till now to encourage old people to work part-time and earn up to £2 a week is being nullified by the way in which the 12-hour rule is being operated, and I would ask the Minister to examine this. I understand that constituents of my hon. and right hon. Friends have urged on them that we are not getting the best and most effective help from these pensioners, because of the operation of the rule that if a man may work for 12 hours or less a week, but that if he works 12¼ hours it is all wrong.


I am told that that rule is being rigidly applied, and it is defeating what was the intention of this House.
This Bill deals almost entirely with contributions and benefits, and I would direct the attention of the House to a major problem which will arise when we come to the review. In his report Lord Beveridge considered the best way to finance the system. He accepted—and everyone has accepted since the insurance system began in the first decade of the century—that this is the kind of scheme which appeals to the people of this country. They like to get a benefit as a right because they pay contributions. We therefore accepted the contributory system, but if we want to retain that system we must examine—and this is one of the reasons why I ask that the time of the review be brought forward—the necessity of bringing the insurance rates to which a man contributes above the scale of assistance. Otherwise the whole basis of the system may be destroyed.
I have been brought up on the contributory system in all my trade union work. I think it is worth retaining. But I am sure that it cannot be retained unless we carefully examine assistance and insurance scales and bring them into the right relationship. I do not think we can do that adequately by interim Measures such as this. Therefore it is all the more urgent that the review should take place fairly soon. We should not wait for the five years to expire. I do not think we can wait so long.
Having decided on the contributory scheme and examined variants of assistance and contributions, Lord Beveridge recommended a flat rate, which I accepted. The scheme was based on a flat rate of contribution, with a flat rate of benefits as well. The contributions in this Bill also are on a flat rate. Let me remind the House of the changes and increases in the contribution during the 10 years. The Beveridge Report recommended that contributions to the insurance scheme by adults of 21 years should be 4s. 3d. a week.
After careful consideration, I reduced the age to 18 and the contributions were fixed at 4s. 7d., with 2d. to be added a few years afterwards, bringing it up to 4s. 9d. as from October, 1951. When this Bill is placed on the Statute Book

the contribution at a flat rate will be 5s. 5d. The Beveridge Report recommended 4s. 3d.; it was 4s. 7d. in 1946 4s. 9d. in 1951, and 5s. 5d. now.
Then there is the case of the self-employed person. There was the old health insurance scheme with contributions and cards, but one of the main features of the 1946 Act, and of the Beveridge Report, was the bringing in of self-employed people into this scheme for the first time.

Sir H. Williams: They were voluntary contributors.

Mr. J. Griffiths: They came in as compulsory contributors. The Beveridge Report recommended a contribution of 4s. 3d. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there was not exactly the same scale of benefits for the self-employed as for the employed person; and because of changes made at the request of self-employed people and their organisations, in the 1946 Bill the contribution was increased to 6s. 2d. Last year it was increased to 6s. 6d. It is now 7s. 5d. For the employed contributor the contribution is 5s. 5d. whether the contributor be a labourer earning £6 a week or a piece worker earning £12. For the self-employed person it is 7s. 5d. whether he be a crofter in Scotland, a marginal farmer in Wales. or a Member of Parliament.
Here we have a system whereby so long as we accept the flat rate contribution the contributor pays 7s. 5d., whether he be a Member of Parliament earning £1,000 a year—and may I say that the salary of Members of Parliament is not too lavish—or whether he be a person with a far bigger salary. This is one of the problems which must be examined, and I do not think we can sustain the flate rate contribution system much longer.
We had considerable discussion about this in the Committee stage. I was apprehensive about what would be the effect of accepting the view put forward by the self-employed that they ought to be brought into the scheme on the same terms as the employed contributor, notwithstanding recommendations to the contrary in the Beveridge Report. The consequence was that, instead of 4s. 3d. as the Beveridge Report recommended, the contribution became 6s. 2d., 6s. 6d., and now it becomes 7s. 5d.
This problem must be considered. We must find some other way. Other ways have been adopted in other countries. It would be out of order for me to go into this question in more detail, but I am satisfied that we must find some way of financing the contributory scheme other than the method of a flat rate contribution which means that the employed contributor who is lowly paid has to pay the same as the higher paid man.
The fact is that under the self-employed scheme many of those concerned cannot pay. Crofters, farmers and perhaps small business people will not be able to pay. We as Members of Parliament are a privileged class of self-employed people. Deductions are made from our salary. I do not think there are many other self-employed people who enjoy that advantage. I am assuming that hon. Members accept that it is an advantage. It is an advantage to the Ministry. They have our self-employed contributions collected for them. But others have to pay them. I think this scheme will break down. The matter must be considered very carefully.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance was largely the author of the industrial injuries scheme. I adopted it. Therefore, we have joint responsibility. This was the most revolutionary change of all in our insurance scheme. I am most anxious that it should work well. I have spoken already of the hardship allowance. Unless the Minister does something about this, the system will not work successfully.
We had a short discussion on a Supplementary Estimate recently. I speak as one who is most anxious that the scheme should succeed. One of the big contributions we have made is to take contention about industrial injuries out of the industrial field. But we have still not forgotten the bitterness in the mining industry. We can buy Meco-Moores for the coal mines; we cannot buy a new spirit. It is not on sale. It cannot be bought. It must be created. Part of that bitterness was caused by what happened to injured people.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) spoke about the single man getting 30s. in 1938. I know that he will not mind if I correct him. The single

man did not get that. That was the maximum which he could get. In 1936 the average compensation for everyone, single or married, was 23s. 8d. a week, with nothing for the wife or child. Indeed, disablement lasting for more than two months in 1936, 1937 or 1938 in South Wales meant public assistance.
Because of all this I am anxious that this scheme should succeed as a great social service. We are the only country in the world which has adopted this method of making payment to those who are injured in industry. I am glad to have been able to take part in the initiation of this scheme. I am anxious that it shall succeed and, because of that, I wish to ask the Minister to look at a problem which I have mentioned previously to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is one which must be examined quickly.

Mr. McKay: Before my right hon. Friend goes further, may I point out that he said that in 1938 a man could not get 30s.? It all depended upon the circumstances.

Mr. Griffiths: I said that not of necessity would a man get 30s. That was the maximum. I indicated the average for single and married men.
The point I wish to make is that the assessments made by the medical boards are too low. This is the biggest venture in this field of insurance, and it will succeed or fail on this point. The Act provides for a list of specified injuries. The only experience we had had in this connection was with war pensioners. But war injuries are confined to a much more limited field than industrial injuries. The experience was too limited to enable us to be sure that we could work the scheme successfully over the wide range of industrial injuries.
The result is that the bulk of cases cannot be assessed according to the book, with a list of specified injuries, so that an official can put a finger here or there. In a wide variety of cases the assessments are too low. I sent details of one case to the Ministry recently, and I have had others. Is it a fact that 50 per cent. of the appeals made to the medical appeal tribunals against assessments by the medical board have succeeded. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he was not unduly worried, but I am. These figures mean that in half the cases which went


to the medical boards people were not assessed high enough.
I appeal to the Minister to look at this matter. We want to remove the bitterness which is felt among some workers. Part of the bitterness under the old workmen's compensation system was due to the fact that a great deal of money was spent in lawyers' and doctors' fees, in the county court and the appeal court, the House of Lords and all the rest of it.
Recently I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he could tell me the cost of administration of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and compare it with the cost of the old workmen's compensation scheme. The figures are most interesting. The administrative expenses of the industrial injuries scheme for the year ended 31st March, 1951, were approximately £2,700,000–7½ per cent. of income. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that included in this £2,700,000 were expenses totalling £468,000 in respect of the cost of medical boards and medical appeal tribunals.
That £468,000 was not a cost upon the fund or upon the employer under the old scheme. It was met by the State. Therefore, the cost of administering the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, when we delete that sum, is just over £2 million or, I should think, somewhere about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. of income. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to remind me in his letter that the Home Office, in a Memorandum to the Beveridge Committee, estimated that, out of the total that workmen's compensation cost the employers in 1938—£13,500,000—at least £3,500,000, or 26 per cent., represented expenses.
There is the contrast, and there is one of the justifications for this scheme. Now we are spending 6 per cent. at most of the income of the scheme on administration, or 7½ per cent. including all the costs of the court, the tribunals and the medical appeal tribunals, whereas in 1938, under the workmen's compensation scheme, the figure was 26 per cent., and that, with other reasons, provides the justification for this scheme.
With my hon. Friends who worked on the Committee, I join in giving a welcome to this Bill. My hon. Friends brought their knowledge and experience to bear

upon this problem, and I regret that I did not share their company and experience on the Committee stage, but I join them in giving the Bill a welcome and in saying that we shall certainly cordially agree to the Third Reading. This Bill, as was the Bill last year, is an interim Measure. Having had these four years' experience of the scheme, it is of the greatest importance that this review into the whole structure of the scheme should take place quickly, and I hope that after this debate the Minister will take what steps are necessary in order that we may be able to engage very quickly in that comprehensive review.
All of us are agreed on one thing—that this Bill and this scheme, in providing a system of social security, sets a pattern to the whole world. When I was privileged to be Minister of National Insurance, I was proud when, very often, representatives came from other countries to examine our scheme, and I am also proud that other countries are increasingly using this scheme as their model.
I hope we shall all feel proud that, as a country and under successive Governments, and, generally speaking, with a unanimous House of Commons, we have indeed set an example to the whole democratic world in the provision of a social security scheme. During the four years in which the scheme has been working, it could not have had more devoted or skilled service than has been given it by the staff, with whom I was privileged to work and to whom I should like to pay another tribute.

6.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I should like to thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of all parties in the House for the way in which they have received this Bill, not only today but during its earlier stages, and especially for the valuable contributions which they have made to today's debate.
Quite clearly, I would not have the time to deal with all the points which have been raised, even if I were in order to do so, but I can assure hon. Members that all their remarks will be very carefully considered, and that we shall also see what other views we can obtain from them. Perhaps I should say, as the special hardship allowance is not in this


Bill, and it would not therefore be proper for me to refer to it, that my right hon. Friend is to discuss that matter with the Trades Union Congress in the reasonably near future. That is all that it would be appropriate for me to say now in that connection.
This debate has really centred upon three main issues. There has been criticism by hon. Members on both sides of the House of the method we have used in fixing the increases which we have found necessary over the previous scales. All that we have done in this matter is to use the method that had been used by our predecessors, taking the all-items index of the cost of living and working on that basis from 5th July, 1948.
I quite understand the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and also the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), who attempted to disagree with his party in some of the things they had done in this scheme. I quite appreciate that he would criticise, quite rightly, what was done, and that he would criticise us for following what was done, but where I found it really difficult to follow the argument was when the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), my predecessor in office, tried to criticise us for taking the all-items index and working on the basis of 1948 figures.
He told us that he thought we ought to work on an index which covered in the main the three important items of food, clothing and fuel, which are the three basic commodities. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the cost of these three items had increased by 46 per cent. I would ask him what he was doing only last year, when he was trying to readjust the retirement pensions in view of the increasing cost of living. What happened then? If he takes the three basic commodities of food, clothing and fuel, he will find that at the time when he was introducing his Measure last year, food had risen to 139.7, clothing to 142.7 and fuel to 127.8. Yet the hon. Gentleman's Bill last year provided an increase of only 15 per cent.
I think it would be much wiser if we can agree that what we can do at present is to work on the basis of getting back to July, 1948, on an all-items index. It may well be that when we come to the review, other cost of living indices may have been devised for this purpose, but,

for the present, that is what all parties have done in the past and what we are trying to do today.
The answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), who suggested a special rate for retirement pensions, was, I think, given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers). The hon. Gentleman must remember that, in addition to their pensions, those who have retired are able to earn up to 40s. a week without suffering any deduction from their pensions, and that, in addition, these retirement pensioners have, in many cases, the opportunity of delaying their retirement and so increasing their pensions up to what will be, as a result of this Bill, 47s. 6d. for a single person at 70, or 79s. for a married couple. That is the justification for keeping sickness benefit and retirement and widows' pensions on a uniform scale, as our predecessors have done.

Mr. McKay: May I put a question to the hon. Gentleman? It concerns the point about retirement pensioners who can earn money by various means. Has he any figures to show how many pensioners who have actually retired from general work have other occupations in which they earn money? I think there is a tremendous percentage who have no opportunity to earn other money.

Mr. Hubbard: I am quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that the people to whom I am referring are the very large number who have no option but to retire for health reasons, particularly those engaged in heavy industry, and who have no other occupation. It is all very well to say that they could do other work, but that would depend on their being qualified to do it and if such work were available to them. Therefore, when we discuss this matter, we are referring to things as they are and not as they might be.

Mr. Turton: I was dealing with the point whether we should use the all-items cost-of-living index for the benefits provided under our social insurance scheme, and I hope I have persuaded the majority of hon. Members that that is the only practical thing to do. It is quite true that there are some old people who are so incapacitated that they cannot work, but we have to look at the broad picture.


In this connection, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked how many people were actually postponing their retirement in order to earn increments. I would repeat to him the figures I gave on Second Reading in answer to a similar question asked by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). The figures show that 60 per cent. of the men are still in employment one month after reaching the age of 65 and that in the case of women the figure is 50 per cent. In the case of women between the ages of 60 and 65 and of men between the ages of 65 and 70 figures show that two out of every seven women and three out of every seven men are still in employment.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for repeating those figures, but, quite frankly, I do not think they show a very big increase over the pre-1948 figures, because one of the things that surprised me was the large number of men and women who did not retire at the respective ages of 65 and 60 prior to 1948. I think it is worth having a survey to find out what influence the increments have in postponing retirement.

Mr. Turton: I think that that is quite right. All the indications we have show that the proportion has not increased in recent months or years. In fact, the Bill last year did not appear to us to persuade many people to accept the inducements contained in it.
I come now to what I think is rather a dangerous misconception on the part of the right hon. Member for Llanelly concerning the earnings rule and the effect of the rule as to 12 hours' work a week. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the hours of work have no effect at all on the amount of money a man is allowed to earn. The hours of work rule is solely a test to see whether a man or woman is or is not retired.
To retire, an insured person must not have any considerable employment, and so the Commissioner, as a test whether the employment is considerable or not, has regard to whether it is either 12 hours in the week or one-quarter of the normal working week, whichever is the greater. But, having retired, a man can work for

as long as he likes without suffering deduction provided his earnings do not exceed 40s. a week. I think that puts the position quite clearly.

Mr. Griffiths: It is quite true that the 12-hours rule made by the Commissioner when I was Minister was the criterion of whether a man was retired or not, but this is how I think it is working out. If a man works 11½ hours, then, by the criterion of retirement—12 hours being 25 per cent.—he is retired and can earn up to £2 a week. But, by the same criterion, if he works 12½ hours he is not retired and cannot qualify for the provision. All I say is that I would like the matter examined. That was the decision of the Commissioner and it may require legislation to change it.

Mr. Turton: I only wanted to correct what was a slight inaccuracy. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has been round the world since he was at the Ministry of National Insurance and it is possible that some of the phraseology used might mislead some people.
I come now to the question of uniformity. The hon. Member for Wallsend said that he had never liked the legislation passed last year; it provided two different rates of pensions for those who had a birthday before 1st October, 1951, and those whose birthdays came after. I wish to pay my tribute to the deputation which came to see me in March, and which put that view very strongly. It was led by the hon. Member for Ince accompanied by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs and a number of other hon. Members. I conveyed to my right hon. Friend the views expressed by that deputation, and no doubt he took those views into full consideration before coming to a decision.
We have had a certain amount of criticism today about the uniform rates on the ground that they are still below the National Assistance scale. In that connection, I think it would be wise for the House to remember what my right hon. Friend is actually doing in this Bill. We are closing the gap as regards sickness and unemployment from 4s. at the present time to 2s. 6d. in the case of a single person, and from 8s. at present to 5s. for a married couple. We are making every effort to diminish that gap, but we have to remember what we can afford to pay out of the fund.
Hon. Members on all sides of the House have talked in terms which excite a great deal of sympathy about the needs of the insured population. But our responsibility in this matter is to
fix a rate of benefit which, while providing a reasonable insurance against want, at the same time takes account of the maximum contributions which the great body of contributors can properly be asked to bear.
That is a quotation from the Coalition White Paper on the social insurance scheme, and that must remain our responsibility.
In that connection, I would assure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) that I found his contribution on the needs of his constituents extremely valuable and that it will have our close consideration. However, he must not complain, as he did, because there is a divergence between the Beveridge scales and our present proposals. Our present proposals have diverged from those of Lord Beveridge. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, proposed that the full rate of retirement pensions should not come into effect until 20 years after the scheme had been in operation for the reason that the insurance fund and the population could not shoulder the full cost at once. That gives us an added responsibility at the present time.
This is an insurance scheme, and we must not do anything to damage the insurance principle. I regret very much that in an otherwise excellent speech the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince made suggestions about raiding the funds. It was a suggestion made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West at an earlier stage. I believe that such suggestions do irreparable damage to the confidence of the insured population in the Funds. I think that those who have reflected on the figures in the Government Actuary's Report on this Bill must see how, if we are to have an insurance system that is sound for the future, it is vital that we should not steal from it at the present time.

Mr. T. Brown: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I stand rebuked, but I just want to qualify what has been said. I suggested that the reserve funds should be dug into for a period of two years pending review of the National Insurance scheme—which,

in my opinion, would meet the needs of those who stand in need and not do any great harm to the surplus funds.

Mr. Turton: I must adhere to my view—although merely a little one. We must stand quite firm against any suggestion of stealing from the reserve fund. Let hon. Gentlemen reflect that this fund is from 1955, as my right hon. Friend said, going to be losing up to a rate of £50 million a year, and that on 5th July, 1958, we shall get the sudden change of the late entrants ceasing contributions and being entitled to pensions; and we shall find in a very short time, in 15 years, that we shall get to a deficit of £275 million a year. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince will regret that he made any suggestion about a raid.
However, that does bring me to what many hon. Gentlemen asked about, and that is the quinquennial review that is to take place after the Actuary has made his Report on the expenditure to 31st March, 1954. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the right hon. Member for Llanelly and others were asking us to expedite this review and to bring it on earlier. I would remind them of what was said by the Government Actuary in his Report on this Bill—that at the present time, in his view, it was premature to attempt any review of the fundamental structure of the finances of the scheme.
The Government will certainly take into account the representations that have been made from all parts of the House, but they must also take into account the wise advice that is tendered to them by the Government Actuary, because a premature review, without our having got full, detailed knowledge, would not be so valuable as a timely review. Hon. Gentlemen must remember that at the end of each financial year we get an Actuary's Report—a very valuable Actuary's Report—on the finances of that year.
We have in this Bill attempted, as we were pledged to do by what we said at the Election, to review the position of those who are on pension, and, in particular, to see that the hardest cases are met first. I believe that in this Bill we are carrying out that undertaking, and that the position of the old, the sick, the children, and the disabled will be brought


back, at least, to the level it was in July, 1948; and when the country considers how great is the economic struggle in which the country is engaged, and the great deficiencies looming up in the funds, I believe it will give to the Government its congratulations upon the boldness and the justice of the Measure to which I now ask the House to give the Third Reading.

Mr. T. Brown: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider the advisability of a social survey into the lives and conditions of the old people before he finally decides upon the complete review?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METERS) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELECTRICITY METERS.)

6.46 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "twenty," and to insert "seventeen."
This is a little Bill, and a little Amendment. But for a piece of bad luck I should not be moving this Amendment now. My watch was a minute slow, and I arrived in the Standing Committee upstairs at 10.31 a.m. to find the whole transactions had been finished in one minute, and the Committee busy thanking the Chairman for his arduous and splendid services in the Chair. I wanted to raise this issue, and the only opportunity then left to me was to move this Amendment now.
I did speak on Second Reading, but I would remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now present of the origin of this matter. I am the father of this Bill in the sense that it amends an Act which I conducted through this House in 1936. I would briefly remind the House how that came about, in order that it can appreciate the significance of my Amendment.
A gentleman who lived in East Ham received an electricity bill for about 10 times the usual amount and objected to

paying it. The Socialist East Ham electricity undertaking cut off his current, and he was annoyed, and, being a legal gentleman, he started reading the Electricity Acts and discovered that the Board of Trade should in 1899 have appointed inspectors all over the country. However, they forgot to do it except in the County of London. It was the duty of the inspectors to inspect the meters to make sure that they were accurate. The result was that it was found that 90 per cent. of the domestic meters had never been inspected, with the result that they were illegal instruments. That applied in the case of the gentleman in East Ham, and so he won.
This put the municipal and other electricity undertakings in a grave situation, because they could not sue for their bills. In those circumstances, at a time when I had some connection with the electricity supply industry, I thought the thing to do was to legislate to validate temporarily all the installed meters, and my view was accepted unanimously by all parties, and my Bill became law after a very short passage through this House and another place.
I thought at that time that 10 years was a reasonable period in which to check up on the meters. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power has probably more accurate figures than I have, but I believe there were about 9 million involved at that time. They did not start work until the appointed day sometime in 1937 because they had to appoint the inspectors, and then, unfortunately, the war came along after they had been at work for only about two and a half years. I imagine very little work was done during the war on this inspecting and testing.
In 1947 the late Government extended the period of grace by five years. That period runs out this year, but there are still large numbers of meters untested. I believe the number is about 4 million. Whether they are accurate or not I do not know. It may be that several millions of householders in this country are being overcharged for electricity, because nobody knows whether these meters are accurate or not.
The Governmnent are asking for another five years of grace, which will mean altogether 20 years have been allowed in which to test 9 million meters. It may be necessary in existing circumstances to


allow five years grace. I am moving the Amendment, to insert 17 years instead of 20, to take three years off that proposed further period of five years. I want some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that this matter is being properly attended to and that real vigour is being put into the job to make sure that electricity consumers are not being cheated by the use of meters the accuracy of which is in doubt.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is quite unnecessary for me to make a long speech after the trouble my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has taken to explain to the House why we have put down this Amendment. I have found that at all times my hon. Friend is always watching for the small things in the legislation that goes through this House, and I feel there are a great number of people who owe him a very great debt for the work he puts in on their behalf. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that this work of inspection will go forward with much greater speed in the next three years compared with the last 15 years.

6.52 p.m.

Sir William Darling: The House will not find me behind my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) in my admiration for my colleague the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), but I feel that in the speech he has just made my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East has departed somewhat from the strict line of conduct and action which I have expected from him hitherto. It appears that he wants more inspectors, for a shorter time than we have had hitherto, and he is evidently concentrating upon the importance of inspections.
I am sure that hon. Members must be aware that the manufacture of electricity meters is a very important, highly complicated, and scientific business. In the City of Edinburgh there is probably the most important meter manufacturing company in the country. That is by the way, but an observation which I felt it appropriate to make. In some ways this Bill is an indictment of the scientific

accuracy of those meters and suggests that they are not capable of carrying out the functions for which they are designed.
But my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East dwells upon a rather different point. If the law says that these meters are to be inspected and they have not been inspected, then I am entirely with my hon. Friend in the desirability of accelerating inspection. But I am concerned with the implications in this matter—first, the increase in the number of inspectors in this over-inspected world, and second, the challenging of the high skill and scientific precision of British engineering, which is internationally supreme. I enter this demurrer, which is painful to me because it is somewhat at variance with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East; but I feel justified in making these observations in defence of the engineering industry of this country.

6.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I must say first how welcome I find the moral support of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), if indeed support it was. Although I do not think we could accept the Amendment, I welcome the opportunity of giving him the assurance for which he asked and also of answering the very reasonable questions put to me. Why should it have taken, or be estimated to take, some 20 years to certify all the electricity meters which will be in use in this country? It does seem a very long time, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), pointed out, it did not start until 1st July, 1938—not 1937—which was the appointed day upon which the Electricity Supply (Meters) Act, 1936, became operative.
Just as certification of meters was getting into its stride the war came, and that completely interrupted the whole business. Then, after the war, the need for reconstruction, and the transitional period, again delayed its resumption. The nationalisation of the electricity industry later interfered with the even flow of inspection, testing and examination of these meters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East was about right, so far as we can judge, in saying that in 1936 there


were about 9 million meters which were untested. There are no exact records, but that is the approximate number. Since then—and I think this is a fact which my hon. Friend did not take into account—all meters installed have been certified. In addition to the certification of old meters, all new meters have been certified, and so the number has been ever-increasing.
Some 5½ million new certified meters have been installed and some 64 million old meters have been certified. As we know, there are at present something in the region of 15½ million electricity meters in the country. I will assist my hon. Friend by doing a rapid deduction and calculation for him and assuring him that we reckon there are now about four million uncertified meters. At present we are able to certify approximately one million meters a year.
That is a very substantial number indeed, because certification of these meters is by no means a simple thing. It is rather comparable to the repairing of a clock on a big scale. It needs the removal of the meter. It is taken to test benches where the atmosphere, circumstances, and surroundings are of the best to give an exact performance for a very delicate instrument indeed. There is renovation in most cases, for they are old meters, and calibration and, ultimately, testing. After the testing, which is done by the electricity boards themselves or by the manufacturers, it is necessary for the Government examiner to come along and examine them, generally by testing samples from batches.
I do not think it would be possible to expedite the procedure to a greater speed than one million meters annually without a quite disproportionate disturbance of industry and the provision of additional capacity and plant which is not at present available. Therefore, I think the five years period for which we are asking is a reasonable one. We hope the job will be completed before the expiration of five years.
But I must explain that these uncertified meters are not evenly distributed throughout the country. There are areas where, before nationalisation, some companies or municipalities had dealt with their meters more rapidly than

others, and it is quite likely that there will be some area boards in whose areas all meters have been certified well before the end of the period of extension for which we are asking in this Bill. On the other hand, there will be some areas where it will be a very difficult job to complete the matter in time. But I am convinced that it will be possible, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that we have not included in this Bill any power for its further extension by Regulation. Therefore, if we should fail to examine all the meters within the available period for which we ask, it will necessitate the introduction of a further Bill.

Mr. Crouch: ; I wonder if my hon. Friend could tell us if there is any means by which a householder can tell whether he has a certificated meter which has been recently examined? How can one tell whether one has an old meter? Are there any means of distinction?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes. If my hon. Friend can persuade his constituent to climb into the very small cupboard in which these meters are generally placed, in the most inaccessible part of the house, he will find that if he has a certified meter it will be stamped with a Government stamp, whereas if the meter is not certified it will not be so stamped. I would add that if a meter is not accurate the probability is that it is running slow and, therefore, to the advantage of the consumer and not the board.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the explanation of my hon. Friend, I do not desire to press this Amendment. I am certain that the debate will stimulate the activities of the inspectors. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In view of what I have already said, I think there is little I need add about this Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) will add any additional explanation or ask for any additional information.

Mr. Harold Neal: On the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed the hope that it would have a quick and easy passage, and I do not propose to interrupt its journey to another place for more than a few moments.
This modest Measure, which was inherited from the last Administration, is most reasonable and essential, because it is physically impossible to implement the existing law before the statutory period of certification expires. The present Measure will afford a respite of five more years for the completion of a task which has three times been miscalculated in previous enactments.
The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that there are some 15½ million meters in this country, 4 million of which remain uncertified. Even if it were possible to complete the certification of those remaining 4 million meters by 30th June, 1953, it would create a double expense in those areas where there is a change of current from direct to alternating.
As the Parliamentary Secretary also said, the consumer is not likely to be disadvantaged by this postponement. Experience has proved—as he has proved to his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams)—that old meters run slow and, consequently, they are to the advantage of the consumer; but if the consumer is aggrieved he has a statutory right to have his meter examined and, if it is proved to be inaccurate, he has the power of recovery from the board who supply him with his electricity.
Despite this reassurance, I feel that there should be some finality to the estimate of complete certification envisaged in the Acts of 1899, 1936 and 1947. Without apportioning blame to either side of the House for previous postponements, or for this postponement, I venture to express the opinion that this will be the last one. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his wide experience and knowledge of legal matters, will agree that repeated postponements tend to bring the law into ridicule and disrespect.
The present Government will have disappeared long before this period of grace has expired, but they will receive the support of this side of the House if a

vigorous attempt is made to ensure that the work of certification is finished so that further postponements are rendered unnecessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is virtually a one-Clause Measure which amends a definition in the Distribution of German Enemy Property Act, 1949, which, for convenience, I may perhaps refer to as the 1949 Act. That Act was passed by the late Administration on 16th December, 1949, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) was concerned with it. The present Measure carries out an undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 31st January of this year. The Measure passed by agreement in another place and I do not think that it is likely to excite any controversy.
By way of precaution I should perhaps declare an interest. I am not at all interested in any of the securities mentioned in the present Measure, but I think I am interested in one of the securities mentioned in the Act of 1949. If I might remind the House, that Act provided for the distribution of the proceeds of German enemy property in this country—which had been allotted to us as reparations by international agreement—to British persons who could establish claims in respect of German enemy debts. Those debts were defined in Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1949.
Briefly, they fell into two classes. The first and general class comprised sums due at the passing of the Act and arising out of a debt incurred by a German person to a British person before 3rd September, 1939. That was the general description of the debts to which the Acts applied. Secondly, German enemy debts,


within the meaning of that Act, were sums due in respect of bonds of certain German and Austrian Government loans, usually known as Reich loans, and in the case of these bonds or securities it was not necessary to prove pre-war British ownership.
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the ownership of bearer bonds frequently alters, and it is seldom possible to trace back ownership over a number of years. Some of the securities mentioned in the Act of 1949 had been issued with the commendation of the British Government at the time, and most of them had been enfaced with a certificate of British ownership. That was the position under the Act of 1949.
No similar exemption from the need to prove pre-war British ownership was provided in the case of the German-Sterling bonds which are named in the present Bill. They are generally called the German non-Reich Sterling bonds. I think the right hon. Member for Colne Valley will probably share my recollection that the reasons that they were not included were both a hope and a fear. The fear was that it might open the door to a possible distribution of these assets to foreign holders. The hope was that it would be possible to overcome administratively the difficulty of establishing prewar British ownership.
This hope has proved ill-founded. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who was, I think, at that time President of the Board of Trade, appointed an Advisory Committee on the Distribution of German Enemy Property, under the chairmanship of Sir John Morison, to devise a satisfactory scheme of distribution of these assets. That Committee found the difficulty of proving pre-war ownership in the case of these non-Reich bonds insuperable and they drew attention to the inequalities of treatment and the unfairness which would inevitably arise if the Act of 1949 were not amended.
The House will find the most important passage in their Report in paragraph 34, from which perhaps I might read a single sentence:
We see no way of remedying this position, which is inherent in the legislation itself, unless it should be considered possible to amend the Act so as to extend the provisions

of Section 8 (1, b) to all bonds issued in London.
That was their recommendation and that is the recommendation which the Bill carries out.
Perhaps I should mention one other matter, since it is one of some importance and does not appear in the words of the Bill. The Advisory Committee also recommended that, in addition to the conditions prescribed in the 1949 Act, the claimant should be required to show that the debt was due to a British subject at a particular recent date. That recommendation has been accepted, and the date is 7th November, 1951. The reason that it does not appear in the Bill is that it was provided for by Order in Council issued under Section 1 of the Act of 1949.
I think I have explained the origin of this Measure. It deals with what would otherwise be an inequality as between holders of different bonds. It carries out a recommendation of a very strong Advisory Committee and I think it will commend itself to the whole House.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I remember very well the occasion upon which the original Act dealing with this matter was put through the House. It fell to me, in association with the hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor, to present that Bill and to watch its progress through this Chamber. It was not a Measure which attracted very much attention except from one or two hon. Members who were interested personally, mainly, I think, in individual cases of refugees whose interests they sought very properly to safeguard.
The Act was nothing more than an enabling Measure and the procedure under it was to take effect through Orders in Council. As far as my memory goes, the amount expected to be realised in the way of liquid and other assets under the Act was no more than about £10 million to £15 million. These bearer bonds were not included separately as it was thought that they could be dealt with administratively. Obviously, the amount involved must be very small, although the hon. and learned Gentleman has not given us the figure.
We raise no objection to the Measure. We approve it and realise why it has had to be introduced. We hope that it will


soon find its way to the Statute Book and, with the original Act, at no distant date enable this part of the aftermath of the war at any rate to be settled.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: This being a Bill to remedy an injustice, naturally it has the support of the whole House, and I would not detain the House merely to explain why I support it. My plea to the Government is that, while they are removing the injustices associated with the distribution of enemy property, they should make a thorough job of it and a complete job of it. That is the reason why I shall detain the House for a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who is no longer in the Chamber, earlier sailed gaily back to 1899. Had he not done so I should have been somewhat diffident in going back to the Treaty of Peace of 1919. At that time some hon. Members were not demobilised, others were at school, and others, more fortunate, had not even got there. But if one had no reason to look into the matter—and this would not be true of my hon. and learned Friend or of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) because they had to look into it—one might well think that the charges imposed in favour of the Custodian of Enemy Property under that Act were now completely as dead as her late lamented Majesty Queen Anne.
But they are not, and because they are not, curious injustices result. It was the fact that about 1919 people were expecting that the question of the distribution of enemy property, dealing with that war, would be wound up by legislation. It never has been, but that is what was generally expected and people made their dispositions and their wills on that basis.
Perhaps I may trouble the House with an example which has been brought to my attention. The result of there having been no legislation such as was anticipated is that, in one instance, a gentleman who has been out of Germany for half his lifetime and who has for many years been a United States citizen is wholly deprived of the benefits of what his great uncle sought to leave, the great

uncle being a British subject. The testator's whole intention has been defeated. The House would not doubt that that is a matter of injustice, because the court in the first instance and the Court of Appeal, finding themselves compelled so to decide, each expressed themselves as doing so with the utmost reluctance.
Why do I ask the Government to consider this matter in relation to this little Bill? My reasons for making the request are two-fold. First of all, the opportunities when this House deals with topics of this kind are comparatively rare and, secondly, there is a little bit of unfortunate history. The principal point to which I am seeking now to draw attention was raised, as I expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, in another place by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, during the Committee stage of the principal Act in 1949.
Lord Lucas, speaking on behalf of the party opposite, was very pleased to extend his grateful thanks to the noble and learned Viscount
for having drawn attention to something that does need rectifying,
and he said,
It will be thoroughly studied with a view to proceeding somewhat upon the lines which the noble and learned Viscount wishes …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th December, 1949; Vol. 165, c. 1490.]
Whereupon the material Amendment was withdrawn and the opportunity was, therefore, lost to remedy this injustice in the principal Act. It was lost because the matter was considered, and the legal advice given to His Majesty's then Government was apparently contrary to that which is now given to this Government.
They took the view that nothing could be done to get rid of this injustice by legislation then, so nothing was done, and the opportunity was lost. I gather that further legal advice has now been taken, considered and tendered, and now I think it is commonly accepted that by legislation this unfairness could be removed. It may be said, "You have only mentioned one case to this House." I do not know any way in which a Private Member can find out how many cases there are, and I can only say, on a cursory inspection of the Law Reports, that it is possible to find another will which appears to bear the mark of illusion


which I spoke about. I hope that this matter will be wound up by legislation, which it never has been, and all I ask now is to be allowed, if the opportunity arises, to put on the Order Paper provisions which, I hope, will have the right effect of removing these inequalities, and that they may be favourably considered by the Government and by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. H. Strauss: May I, with the leave of the House, add a word on the topic which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) has raised. As regards the possible Amendment of the Act of 1949, it is only fair that I should say to my hon. and learned Friend that I can see considerable difficulties in amending this Bill and so greatly extending it as to deal with such a topic as he has mentioned, because this Bill is confined by its long title to a single purpose, namely, altering one definition in the Act of 1949.
I say that quite irrespective of any merits that the case to which my hon. and learned Friend has alluded may have. I am sure he will not mind my saying that I am not, of course, admitting that it has merits. Nor am I saying anything about the merits of any kind, but I see great difficulty in amending the present Measure, which is confined to a single purpose. Nevertheless, I need hardly say that if my hon. and learned Friend puts something on the Order Paper I should give it proper and serious consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee upon Tuesday, 10th June.—[Major Conant.]

MOTOR VEHICLES (INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, like its predecessor on the Order Paper, comes to us from another place, and it will, I hope, in due course, form a useful and practical addition to the statutes.
The main purpose of the Bill is to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify and give effect to the United Nations Convention on Road Traffic, which was signed at Geneva in September, 1949, and to give effect, also, to one of the provisions included in the Agreement relating to the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in June, 1951. This particular provision envisages the acceptance of driving permits or military driving permits held by the personnel of forces visiting this country in accordance with the terms of that Agreement. Both these Agreements have already been presented to Parliament in Command Papers 7997 of 1950 and 8279 of 1951.
Under the 1949 Convention, the Government agreed that they would take the necessary steps to introduce certain modifications in the present arrangements relating to the use and driving of motor vehicles by temporary visitors to the United Kingdom coming from countries which are parties to that Convention. Apart, however, from these specific commitments under the Convention there are certain additional privileges which it is desired to concede to visitors from the Convention countries, and, moreover, with a view to encouraging motorists from abroad to visit this country more freely, it is proposed to extend to foreign visitors generally many of the privileges granted to visitors from the Convention countries. Certain powers for giving effect to international conventions relating to the international circulation of motor vehicles already exist in the Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909.
That was a Measure which was piloted through this House by Mr. John Burns after a debate which lasted some 10 minutes. I do not know whether that is


a happy omen for the proceedings this evening, but it is interesting to recall that it was taken immediately following a Division on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill of that year, following on Mr. Lloyd George's famous Budget. History does not relate whether the benches were more thickly populated than they are at the moment. I think it unlikely, as the House had been through a strenuous exercise, but, be that as it may, that Act has lasted for 43 years and worked fairly well.
However, its terms are not wide enough to enable effect to be given to certain obligations which we are now prepared to accept under the 1949 Convention or under the provision of the North Atlantic Treaty Agreement to which I have referred. They are also too restrictive to permit the contemplated additional concessions to visitors from Convention countries or the extension of concessions to visitors from non-Convention countries.
Similarly, the powers already available to the Minister of Transport by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, to make special provision in certain particular respects in relation to persons not resident in Great Britain and to vehicles brought temporarily into Great Britain by such persons, are also inadequate. In these circumstances, it is proposed by this Bill to repeal the Act of 1909 and, in effect, to re-enact it with modifications designed to secure the wider powers now needed to meet modern conditions and requirements. It will be observed that the Bill has been drafted in such a way that effect can be given to any future international convention or agreement without the need for additional legislation.
I need hardly point out to the House that flexibility to enable future agreements to be implemented without the delay involved in securing further, and probably detailed, legislation for the purpose is of special importance at the present time in view of the frequency with which new agreements emerge from the various international organisations which are now in existence.
It is largely to enable effect to be given to future agreements, the exact terms of which cannot now be foreseen, that it was decided in this Bill to follow the precedent of the Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909, and to seek

authority for the use of delegated powers. The House will note that the powers to be exercised are confined to a limited field, namely, to matters involved in the provision of facilities for international motor traffic.
Clause 1 provides that provision may be made by Order in Council for the issue of any travel documents which may be required for residents in the United Kingdom and their vehicles for the purpose of travel abroad. In that respect the Clause is a simple re-enactment in revised wording of the corresponding provision written into the Act of 1909.
The Clause will also enable provision to be made by Order in Council for the modification of any enactment relating to vehicles and the drivers of vehicles so that concessions which are obligatory under an international agreement and others which are incidental to, or connected with, matters covered by an international agreement may be made in respect of drivers and vehicles coming temporarily to Great Britain from places outside the United Kingdom.
As an example of the manner in which it is proposed to use these powers, I may say that it is intended to dispense with the need at present imposed by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for temporary visitors, holding either international driving permits or national driving permits issued by a country which has ratified the 1949 Convention, to hold also British driving licences when driving motor vehicles in this country. It is also intended to extend this exemption to visitors from non-Convention countries provided that they hold acceptable national driving permits.
Perhaps I might remind hon. Members that it is the general practice of continental countries to exempt British visitors holding international driving permits from the need to obtain domestic permits in those countries. A number of countries go further and extend the exemption to visitors holding only British domestic driving licences. Our insistence that holders of international driving permits must hold British driving licences was the subject of considerable criticism during the conference which lead to the signature of the 1949 Convention.
It is, moreover, a constant source of irritation to foreign visitors to be required at the port of entry to make formal application for a British licence which is issued


automatically without driving test or fee to holders of international driving permits and without driving tests, but on payment of the normal fee of 5s. to holders of foreign national driving permits who do not hold international permits. It is now proposed to remove this source of complaint and irritation.
Hon. Members will also observe that under subsection (5) of the Clause a draft of any Order under the Clause must be laid before Parliament and be approved by a resolution of each House before it is made, while any Regulations made under the Order will be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House.
Clause 2 deals with the question of Northern Ireland. As the House will be aware, matters relating to the regulation of vehicles and drivers using the public roads in Northern Ireland are, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, "transferred" legislative matters within the competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. For this reason, the part of Clause 1 which enables provision to be made for concessions to visitors and vehicles from abroad applies only to Great Britain.
There is, however, an element of "foreign relations" in these matters, and, consequently, to avoid any doubt as to competence, specific provision has been made in Clause 2, in terms which have been agreed with the authorities in Northern Ireland, to empower the Governor of Northern Ireland to make concessions to foreign visitors to that country and their vehicles.
The only further point to which I think it is necessary to draw the attention of the House is in Clause 3, which modifies Section 7 (3) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, and, in its application to Northern Ireland, Section 13 (5) of the Finance Act, 1920. These subsections will no longer be required in their present form when the Bill becomes law; but their continuance as modified by subsections (1) and (2) of the Clause is required to give statutory authority for a reciprocal arrangement which already exists between the authorities of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under which motor vehicles which are currently licensed in Northern Ireland are exempted from the payment of further vehicle licence duty when in Great Britain, and vice versa.
As I said at the outset, the Bill comes to us from another place, and I trust that the House, after hearing this explanation of the need for which the powers are being sought, will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary reminded the House that the Second Reading of the 1909 Act lasted only 10 minutes. From the crowded nature of the benches behind me, he will realise that we do not propose to oppose the Bill and that there is no likelihood that it will be very long delayed by my hon. Friends. The moral in that is that if the Government would only introduce legislation of such a non-controversial nature as this the time of the House would not be so fully occupied. Perhaps it augurs well for further Transport Bills which are to come before us.
We welcome the Bill because it facilitates the tourist trade, both inwards and outwards. It is a pity that at the same time as the Ministry of Transport is facilitating the tourist trade within the country it has introduced certain restrictions in regard to civil aviation landing fees which are passed on to the passengers. Nothing is more irritating to tourists than to be called upon to hand out small sums while they are visiting foreign countries. Consequently, we welcome the abolition of the fee previously charged to motorists who came into this country.
There are one or two points which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. I notice that in the Convention, for the purpose of enacting which the Bill is before us, the relief is only of a temporary nature. I should like to know what was the maximum time that a tourist can be within this country and be exempt from having to take out a British driving licence and having to pay the necessary fee.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, two categories of people benefit by the Bill. There are the visiting forces who happen to be stationed here under the N.A.T.O. Treaty, and there are also nationals of the countries who have ratified the Convention. With regard to the first category, to what extent are vehicle drivers of foreign forces subject to United Kingdom laws? If a driver who is


exempted from obtaining a British driving licence infringes one of our domestic laws—for instance, if a man goes to a party and receives excessive hospitality from his British hosts and is afterwards involved in an accident which is reported to his base—what responsibility has he in relation to any damage caused?
I should very much like to know about the position in such a case. In particular, what happens after an accident occurs and in similar circumstances the penalty on a British national would be the endorsement and suspension of the licence for a period? Would that apply to the foreign soldier, and would it be possible to take away the driving permit which he has in place of a British driving licence? It is important that this should be taken care of, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me an answer. Because of the increasing number of accidents on the roads, both fatal and nonfatal, it is important that every step should be taken to reduce their number and increase road safety. If, in extending this privilege to foreign troops in this country, we are in any way increasing the risk on the roads, then some further action must be taken.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could also tell us whether this Convention is in force. I understand that it was signed by 20 member States at the Conference, and it only requires five ratifications before it becomes effective. When it went through another place it was stated that it had not yet been ratified by a sufficient number of member States to become effective. When Her Majesty's Government ratifies, will there be sufficient ratifications to bring it into full force?
I have had a look at this Convention, and, in effect, it is an international highway code, but it seems to me that some of the articles which are included are not really necessary. It seems to have been reduced to the lowest common denominator. It is not for us to criticise it here because the Bill is not very relevant to such articles, but I came across one which rather surprised and mystified me. It is Article 8 (1), which states:
Every vehicle or combination of vehicles proceeding as a unit shall have a driver.
It hardly seems necessary to include such a requirement in an international highway code. I would ask the Parliamentary

Secretary whether this Convention will not require further legislation, or has Her Majesty's Government the power to bring certain sections of the Convention into force simply by regulation?
For instance, I see that cyclists are never to proceed more than two abreast on the carriageway. I favour that because there is nothing more irritating to motorists than to come up behind a herd of cyclists. I do not think that that is at present included in the Highway Code, but I know of no requirement which insists on cyclists riding not more than two abreast. Further, there are certain requirements regarding lighting which certainly are not effective in this country now.
I know that they do not have to come into effect until a certain number of years after the Convention has been ratified, but there is a requirement that cars should have two red lights or reflectors at the rear. As is well-known, a large number of British cars have at present only one rear light. Does that mean that after a certain time when this Convention is ratified it will be necessary for all cars on the roads to carry these two rear lights?
The Convention also requires that headlights and pass lights shall illuminate what appears to me to be a greater distance on the road than most headlights are capable of doing at present. In future, under the Convention the minimum requirement appears to be 325 feet, and I think that most motorists would agree that the headlights of cars today, except a modern car, are not as effective as that. A protocol on road signs accompanies this Convention, and it endeavours to standardise signs which are used in a number of countries and which facilitate foreigners who cannot speak our language. Again that contributes towards road safety. I notice that we did not sign this protocol, and I was wondering why and what we are going to do about it.
As I said at the outset, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill. We consider that it is desirable that there should be an effective international code, which is in the interests of road safety, and which at the same time facilitates tourism in this country, an aspect of the matter with which we are mainly concerned tonight. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be satisfied with the short time which it will take for this Bill to receive its Second Reading.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I believe that the late Ernest Bevin said in this House in 1946 that one of his lifetime's ambitions was to create a state of affairs whereby a British citizen might travel across Europe without a passport. I rise this evening to make the same plea in connection with motor vehicles. I have waited back here this evening, because tomorrow morning I am flying to Stockholm to collect my car and drive it through three or four Scandinavian and Western European countries. I am using this Parliamentary opportunity to endeavour to demonstrate the extraordinary and incredible complexities which face one today on taking a motor vehicle abroad and driving it through a number of countries.
The British national going abroad must have not only his passport, but, in addition, he must have documents called the International Certificate for Motor Vehicles, the International Driving Permit, and the International Fiscal Permit. There is a fifth document which I am unable to produce this evening because my car has gone ahead but it is called a carnet, a sort of passport for a motor vehicle on which are entered a large number of details of the motor vehicle concerned.
To take a motor vehicle abroad from this country often involves a British national writing 20 or more letters, signing his name 50 or more times, and, however expert he may be in the process, it may often occupy six to eight hours of working time to comply with all the bureaucratic details required on the various forms that must accompany the vehicle or the owner of the car.
I am sorry to say that this modest Bill, which has a few good features to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) referred, is in measure a re-enactment of the Statute of 1909, but makes little or not contribution towards the simplification of the complexities to which I have referred. It is true that a foreign citizen coming to this country is to be relieved of the responsibility for getting a British driving licence, but it in no manner or wise helps a British national going abroad, for he is still faced with this mass of complications to get his car out of the country

and then to get it from country to country in Western Europe, in North Africa, and the Middle East.
I would make a plea for the simplification of procedure, on an international scale, for the movement of a private motor car and similar vehicles. Is it necessary for such a vast amount of detail to be shown on the travel documents? On the carnet for an ordinary standard British motor vehicle, manufactured in this country, one has to show the registration number, the chassis number, the engine number and the numbers of all five tyres on the car; the detailed specification of the vehicle, its colour and the colour of the upholstery, the nature of the radio set, if any, in the car and the reference number of the manufacturer of the radio set; details of the spare tools carried in the back of the car; and a host of other details much of which I conceive to be totally irrelevant.
A measure of standardisation of the bare and irreducible minimum of the details and specification of the motor car and equipment is urgently wanted, by international agreement. We are hemmed around by more than enough restrictions, controls and interference by bureaucratic officials. In the case of motor vehicles moving around the world, provided the person concerned has a passport, an effort should be made under the leadership of this country to simplify the procedure.
My final point is probably unique. There is no reason why the British passport, British issued International Driving Permit, British issued International Certificate for Motor Vehicles and British issued International Fiscal Permit should not be amalgamated into one and the same document. Each of these four documents need cover only a few pages. There is more than enough room in the passport for them to be inserted.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Not everybody requires to have such documents in his passport.

Mr. Nabarro: No, but the point is that if I, as a motorist, wished to take a car abroad, I would apply for these documents and have them mounted in my passport. They should then be valid for the same length of time, that is six years, as the British passport, so that the whole of the documents are renewable on the


same date. They would all be contained within the one cover as one omnibus document, to carry the human being around a number of countries in Western Europe and elsewhere and it should carry his motor vehicle around as well. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) is cynical about this idea. He has experience of the Foreign Office. Has he any experience of moving a motor vehicle around? I will willingly give way to him.

Mr. Davies: I have taken my car abroad.

Mr. Nabarro: Has the hon. Gentleman tried to take it through a dozen countries in one trip, each country with different rules and regulations? Has he suffered the extraordinary inconvenience which is experienced by many British motorists travelling abroad?
I make a plea for standardisation and simplification, and that the lead should be given by this country. We make more motor cars than any country in the world, other than the United States of America. We have a great motoring tradition and powerful motoring organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association. We should be capable of furnishing the necessary leadership in this matter.

7.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is to be congratulated on the dogged pertinacity with which he is setting out to have a holiday over the Whitsun Recess. I trust that his pertinacity will be rewarded, that he will find his car waiting for him when he gets to Stockholm, and that laden with all the documents to which he has referred, the car will not break down in the course of his travels.
He has raised matters of moment which would require a further meeting of the United Nations. I do not think it will be within the competence of the Parliamentary Secretary to hold out any immediate prospect of an early solution of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The difficulties are surely a reflection of the general international situation. If other aspects of that situation were to be improved these difficulties would be taken in their stride and solved.
As I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary commending the Bill to the House I thought he drove along at what might be described as a rather spanking pace. It was not possible for the slowwitted among us to absorb all the points which he incorporated in the course of his remarks. I was rather taken with his reference to the flexibility which the Bill will confer upon the Government in its administration. Those of us who sat in previous Parliaments spent many long and weary hours listening to hon. Gentlemen now sitting opposite—I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary played his part in those days—denouncing the Government for introducing delegated legislation which gave the Government wide powers and provided flexibility.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), when he was Leader of the House, used to commend this kind of legislation on the ground that it gave flexibility. He was fiercely and continuously attacked for introducing legislation of this kind, but I have no objection at all to it. It seems clear that the Parliamentary Secretary, with responsibility, has acquired wisdom and experience which are on all fours with what was advocated in his hearing on many occasions by previous Administrations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) referred to the subject of lighting. There are differences in the lighting codes of different countries. If I am driving behind a very modern American car I am dazzled by the array of red lights at the back, which flash in and flash out. Some of them are apparently permanent while some come out and then disappear. I do not quite know what the object of all that posterior illumination is. It is confusing, unless one has the handbook which will explain what it all boils down to. If I see one of those cars ahead of me I let it get as far ahead as possible so that I shall not run the risk of being confused by the manipulations that are taking place in the rear of that car.
As has been made clear by previous speakers, the Bill gives effect to a United Nations Convention, and to the extent that we do anything to support or bring into effect such a Convention, we are doing something that is good and proper.
The Parliamentary Secretary may rest assured that this Bill will not be opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) correctly interpreted the views of all my hon. Friends who heard him tonight when he gave an undertaking that this Measure would not be opposed. Although there have been occasions on both sides of the House when front bench speakers have not always correctly interpreted the views of back bench Members, on this occasion there is no difference of opinion between the back benchers on either side of the House and the two front benches.
Although the Parliamentary Secretary almost exceeded the speed limit in commending this Bill to the House, I hope it will shortly find its way on to the Statute Book and help the closer contact that we all want to see established between motorists in different countries. If we establish friendly contact between motorists, who knows?—we may be able to establish a more friendly contact between larger sections of the respective populations.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I am sure everyone will sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in the large pile of documents he seems to have acquired in his efforts to go abroad tomorrow. On the several occasions on which I have had the good fortune to take a car abroad, I have never had to collect such a large number of documents. My hon. Friend has either been unlucky in where he got the documents, having had pressed on him more than he needs, or else he is visiting some strange countries outside the normal conventions—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Perhaps he has a different kind of record from the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell).

Mr. Russell: In going to Spain last year the only documents I took were a carnet and an international driver's certificate. I was not asked for the latter but I had to produce the carnet at the proper place at each frontier. So there is a certain amount of paper wasting.
I think the reason why the carnet and other documents require so many particulars—such as the engine number, chassis

number, registration number, colour and so on—is because of that system of protecting Her Majesty's home industries against foreign competition, of which I am sure he and I and most hon. Members of this House approve, which is enforced in most countries. It is to make sure that we do not try to sell our car abroad or change the engine, which is not difficult these days, and bring in something we did not take out.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure my hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that, if there were the measure of reform which I advocate, all of the car documents would be mounted in the one and same passport document. It would be stamped to show that the national had taken his car abroad, and as the national would have to produce his passport to get back into this country, it would also be shown that he had come back without his car.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I hope the hon. Member is not making a second speech.

Mr. Russell: I would not want my passport to be bigger than it is, particularly when one goes abroad without a car and has to carry the passport in a pocket instead of being able to dispose of it in the car.
There are one or two questions I want to ask my hon. Friend. I am intrigued to know why there has been a delay of three years in bringing forward this Measure when the United Nations Convention took place in 1949. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Davies) perhaps would be more in a position to explain that than my hon. Friend, though I do not press the point.
I also want to ask whether there is any prospect of third party insurance being made more interchangable than it is at present. In most countries of Western Europe one does not have to take out a third party insurance if one is the holder of a British certificate. I went to Denmark before the war without something I should have had, possibly my insurance policy, and I had to take out a third party insurance in that country. I hope this Bill or any future convention will solve that problem and make the third party insurance even more widespread than it is now.
Also, could the fees which have to be paid on crossing frontiers be made more


universal—perhaps I should say, less universal? One often finds in crossing a frontier by car that a fee is charged either on going into one country or on coming out of one, when one may have deliberately exhausted all one's currency of either of the two countries. Could there not be some standardisation of those fees which are charged presumably by the Customs for examining documents?
Both hon. Gentlemen opposite mentioned lighting. That is a complex problem which is also bound up with the difference in the rule of the road. Here we have almost universally a system of headlights by which the offside one can be switched off and the near side one dipped. That is useless in other European countries because it has the effect of switching the near side light, if not into the eyes of oncoming drivers, of making them think it is switched into their eyes. I remember once in Germany when a motorist stopped me and nearly smashed the window of my car in his anger because I had not dipped my headlights sufficiently.
There are different regulations covering headlights in many countries. In France it is necessary to have yellow headlights or a yellow filter over a headlamp. It is true that I managed to get through France in both directions last year without such a filter, but I took great care to dip the lights whenever there was any oncoming traffic. I am wondering if in future we could have some standardisation of headlights both as to colour and dimming.
Like other speakers I welcome this Bill. I hope it will make the circulation of motor cars internationally even easier than at present. I hope it may be the forerunner of more standardisation and more conventions which will facilitate still more the speeding up of international road traffic.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: If I may have the leave of the House to reply briefly to the points which have been raised may I say that this debate certainly compares favourably with its predecessor in 1909, when the Minister in charge of the Bill was John Burns and the only other speaker from the Tory benches was ruled out of order after delivering a few sentences. The only other contribution came

from a representative of the usual channels who moved that the Bill be committed to, a Committee of the whole House. We have certainly gone wider tonight.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will not expect me to follow him in the matter of civil aviation fees, for the obvious reason that I should incur your displeasure, Sir, if I did. However, he asked me certain questions to which I shall endeavour to reply briefly. He asked how long visitors from abroad with cars might be regarded as temporarily with us. The period is 12 months. That is a generous allocation of time for what may be described as a temporary visit.
Visiting forces who break our laws are still operating under the 1942 agreement made during the war, by which they are dealt with by their own military courts for offences of this kind. At the moment we have with us only Americans. Should other N.A.T.O. forces come to this island, there is in contemplation legislation to cover them also; but that is not in existence at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I ought to say a word about the position of civilians from other countries who break our laws, particularly in the matter of offences which, were they dealt with here among our own people, would mean either suspension or endorsement of licence, because the matter was one of very considerable importance.
The hon. Gentleman cited an instance where hospitality had been too much for drivers. That is the sort of thing that happens. Anyone who is in charge of a motor car when drunk in this country is, of course, liable to have, and frequently does have, his licence withdrawn or suspended. We cannot do that with a foreign licence. What will happen under the proposed new powers in such a case is that the licence will be impounded and returned to the offender when he leaves our shores. One imagines that he would exchange his ration card for his licence when he was leaving.
Where the offence which is committed is one which would have brought endorsement to one of our people, that is a more difficult matter to handle. What happens is that the court reports to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that the offence has taken place, and


we communicate with the country from which the offender comes, telling them that he has committed an offence in this country which would have brought endorsement of his licence. It is for them to take such action as they think proper.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Could we get the position of visiting troops quite clear? In effect, if an offence was committed which would result in suspension of a licence we cannot take any action whatever; and we have no guarantee that the military authorities of the foreign State would take the action which we would take. Is this correct?

Mr. Braithwaite: That is so, under the 1942 arrangement. In fact, however, foreign countries take a very grave view of such offences. I am talking now, of course, of military personnel in uniform. At present, the vast majority of those who drive American military vehicles in this country are, in fact, British civilians. That is one of the things which sometimes happens in practice. The hon. Member can rest assured that the matter is being dealt with.
I was then asked about ratification. Sufficient ratifications were obtained for the convention to come into force on 26th March this year, the necessary five countries having assented. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these provisions are operated by us through Orders in Council. The hon. Gentleman asked about the protocol. I remind him that what the Bill does is to empower the Government to sign. There are certain matters in the protocol to which we do not at present assent. It is unlikely, therefore, to be signed at the moment. There are certain things with which we do not entirely agree.
We would all wish my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) an enjoyable trip. He did not tell us the route which he proposes to follow. I think he said that he was going to Stockholm, and I have engaged in a little research. If my hon. Friend is going to Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Luxembourg—which is as far, I think, as he ought to get during the Whitsuntide Recess, unless his driving is to be like that of the manner of Jehu—all those countries have signed the 1949 Convention, and my hon.

Friend will find reciprocity in force. If he penetrates further to Egypt and Israel, he would find the same happy situation. I hope that he will not encounter too much difficulty during his trip.
My hon. Friend pleaded for simplification in these matters. It was the hon. Member for Enfield, East who pointed out, quite rightly, that so often these international agreements are based on the lowest common denominator. They very often are difficult to achieve, and often fall short of what one would like to see. Of course, one would like to see advance in all these matters, and it is my belief that this may well be not the last of such agreements. The Bill gives us power to act upon them as and when they are made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster pleaded for one document embracing the passport and everything else. I am sure that this does not apply to my hon. Friend, but if there was only one document those who lost it would be in a far graver situation than if there were six. There are people who go abroad and who are good at losing documents of this kind. But not so my hon. Friend. At any rate, that is the kind of objection which might arise.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) pointed out that the provisions of the Bill were the result of United Nations negotations. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for addressing the House for some 10 minutes without mentioning London fares—another subject which is at present troubling the Department.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I can soon put that right.

Mr. Braithwaite: If the hon. and gallant Member did so on this occasion, he would be out of order.
I am sorry if the pace was too hot when I made my speech on Second Reading. That was not my intention. In any case, the hon. and gallant Member is not one of the slow-witted Members of this assembly, and I am quite sure that he followed everything I said.
Flexibility and the machinery to allow it to operate is, of course, borrowed lock stock and barrel from the 1909 arrangements. In these international matters, it is a good thing if one can move quickly


without having to go through the full processes of a Parliamentary Bill. The machinery in this instance is the result of an Amendment inserted from another place on the motion of a noble Lord who adorns the Opposition benches there. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member will not complain too much about that.
Lighting is, of course, a problem. Once again, what we endeavour to get is a general agreement on board principles without going into points of detail. There is a shortage of material which prevents us from carrying posterior warnings—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Posterior illuminations.

Mr. Braithwaite: There is a shortage of material which does not enable us to go in for quite such flamboyance on our own vehicles, but we adhere to the main principles of lighting in these international conventions. They vary a little from time to time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) asked why there had been three years' delay in introducing the Bill to ratify the convention. We plead guilty only to six months of that period as Her Majesty's present advisers. I do not know what delayed our predecessors. It may well have been pressure of Parliamentary business. Hon. Members will remember the ease with which they seized the opportunity for maladministration during that time, and how a number of Measures which were put through are now in course of being removed or remoulded.
My hon. Friend asked also about the question of insurance. This is a very pertinent point, and I am pleased to inform him that a new international arrangement is now being finalised at Geneva; and this will be put into operation as soon as practicable.
There are many other matters which must be discussed in future on an international basis. This is a good beginning. A number of quite useful agreements were written into this Convention, and I hope that there will be many more. We are moving into a sphere in which international agreement in these matters is somewhat easier than it used to be years ago. The fact that this honourable House, the Parliament of Great Britain,

allows the Bill to go without a Division, will be regarded abroad as an earnest of our intentions in this matter to cooperate with other countries in this important sphere of transport.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee upon Tuesday, 10th June.—[Mr. Thompson.]

DEVELOPMENT AREA POLICY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I wish to take this opportunity to raise several questions affecting the Development Areas. If, by way of illustration, I refer only to the North-East Development Area, it is because I am personally acquainted with it, but most of the points which I shall raise refer to Development Areas generally.
It would seem that at the moment there is a good deal of disquiet in the Development Areas. That may be partially unavoidable, in view of our present national situation, and partially inseparable from the present Government. However that may be, it is at the moment being aggravated by the way in which the administration is being carried on. I realise that for a considerable time there have been difficulties over the production tests, but it seers that now the officials are acting with such vigour and enthusiasm in stopping everyone doing anything, that many industrialists are geting the impression that there is nothing to be gained from going into the Development Areas; that in fact there is a good deal of time and patience to be lost in trying.
I consider this unfortunate, because some of the officials who are so vigorous in stopping people going into the Development Areas have done good work in what is the difficult job of persuading industrialists to come to these areas. It would seem also that this is aggravated because many industrialists find that after they have gone through the difficult process of getting approval, every


pressure is brought on them to persuade them that they ought not to get any money from the Government. And if they cannot get that money the facts at the moment are that there are real deterrents towards going to a Development Area because of credit restrictions and higher interest rates. I am sure that it would help if we could get a clearer declaration of policy regarding the Development Areas.
In other circumstances I do not think this would be so important. If we had rising employment and decreasing unemployment I do not think this would affect us so much as it does today. I do not want to be alarmist about this, I hope that we can control the rising unemployment, but today we have a trend towards rising unemployment. We have also the matter which I raised by way of Questions that over a period now there has been increasing redundancy in the new factories themselves.
If we take the case of the new factories in the North-East alone, over the past six months we have had redundancy amounting to very nearly 2,000. In other words, 2,000 people have lost their jobs in the new factories; in fact, these factories are now employing up to 2,000 less than were employed six months ago. So far as the region as a whole is concerned, this is largely affecting women. To give a further illustration, in the case of my own constituency of Sunderland, in the new factories alone, for the past six months 800 people have been paid off, and that includes a substantial number of men.
This, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, must be a very disturbing fact to us in the North-East. Indeed, the position is worse than I have given, because these factories are employing far short of their potential. I think I am right in saying that these factories, which are today employing about 42,000, were estimated by the Board of Trade to employ, when fully in production, some 90,000 to 100,000 people.
So that there has not only been a fall in employment, but it has taken place against a background in which it was estimated that there would be increased employment. That is why I think the Parliamentary Secretary is very wrong in referring to the position 12 months ago, and saying that from an employment point

of view, although we have had a set-back over the past six months, at any rate it is better than 12 months ago. In fact, the estimate was that these factories would today be employing at least 5,000 more, and it was hoped some 10,000 more than 12 months ago.
We must therefore feel seriously concerned about present developments in these areas. Against this background I feel that the Government ought to do more to ensure that the Development Areas get a larger share of Government contracts. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is receiving strong pressure from other quarters. I concede at once that the Minister of Supply has revealed that 10 per cent. of the orders are going to the Development Areas. But, in the circumstances which I have described, I feel that that is not enough to assist these areas and help them over what is, after all, a very serious set-back.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can assist me about this, but we in the North-East feel that we ought to have had more engineering and electrical works. I cannot assist the Parliamentary Secretary by particularising, but I have had this complaint from several quarters that we ought to have had more assistance from Government contracts. In fact, we are rather disappointed at the progress made in the engineering and electrical field.
Having said that, it may appear a little illogical to criticise the Government cut in capital expenditure in the Development Areas. So far I have criticised the Government because we are not making fuller use of the factories already built; and I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman may make the debating point against me that if this is so this is a wholly inopportune moment to criticise the Government for cutting down building in the Development Areas. But the whole case I am making on the question of redundancy is that we must take more vigorous and resolute steps to ensure that we step up production in the factories.
Quite apart from that, I feel we cannot yet think that we have solved the problem of the Development Areas. We are far from it. We are disturbed today that we still have a much higher incidence of unemployment than the rest of the country; that we have this general background of rising unemployment, which I


hope can be contained, and we still have the fundamental problem of some further and fairly substantial redundancy in some of the basic industries.
Against that background I think the decision to cut by very nearly £3 million the capital expenditure in the Development Areas, very nearly half the expenditure on new factories, is deplorable. I hope that the Government will have another look at this problem and that they will try to restore the previous position. The hon. and learned Gentleman has already mentioned the difficulties. I fully appreciate the difficulty about steel and the dilemma of exporting at the cost of capital development at home. It is not the first time that we have been up against difficulties on the question of steel for capital construction. I had hoped that the extra supplies of steel that we expect to obtain this year would have enabled us to hold the position as it affects capital development in these areas.
On the main difficulty of paying our way, again I feel that the Government have acted in panic. I concede that the Government face a difficult dilemma, but we must realise that perhaps within the next 12 months, and certainly within the next year or two, we shall be up against much more acute competition than that we have faced in the last few years. This will demand further re-equipment in industry and, especially, re-equipment in the Development Areas. I appeal to the Government to look at this matter again to see what can be done to avoid this drastic cut in capital expenditure for the Development Areas.
I have mentioned the future position of some of the basic industries. I am specially concerned with ship-building. I need give only one figure to show the grave problem which that industry presents. In 1932 in the United Kingdom unemployment in the industry over the years was no less than 64 per cent. That means that anyone in the ship-building industry is naturally apprehensive even today. We are most fortunate that this vitally important national industry has enjoyed a high level of prosperity since the end of the war.
It is an achievement that over those years we have had a substantial run-down in the number of employees in the industry. About 50,000 people have left the industry in those years. It is much to the

credit of the industry that it is maintaining its present high output with 50,000 fewer workers than it employed in 1945. I hope that we can maintain this prosperity. But I have some fears, not so much on the ground of competition but on the ground that the present unfortunate dislocation in world trade will reflect itself sooner or later in freight rates.
When we get a lack of confidence in freight rates, that will express itself directly on ship-building orders. In spite of the prosperity which we are happy to enjoy now, we must recognise that this industry cannot keep in continuous employment its present 200,000 workers. There will be perhaps soon, but if not then certainly within a reasonable time, a fairly heavy redundancy. That is a dilemma which faced this country in the years of the depression when it was a heavy burden.
I have previously argued that the only effective way to prepare against such a redundancy in these basic industries is to provide alternative work of a nature suited to the skilled people in those trades. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have argued for specialised factories equipped to provide work suitable for these excellent workers.
I have argued that, instead of the old advance factories, industrial premises should be built for specific purposes. In fact, two projects of that nature were agreed on the North-East Coast—one at Jarrow and one at Sunderland. These were to be special factories, and I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that these projects were deferred by the Labour Government. While I at once concede that, I would point out that these projects were deferred in very different circumstances. They were deferred when we, on the North-East Coast, had already reached a record low level of unemployment, and what might have been appropriate in such circumstances cannot be justified in present circumstances.
I have also argued in the past that we should go a step further with the only solution to the industrial problem of the Development Areas, now that we have provided a fair diversification by means of what we generally call light industries, and the only way to tackle the problem is by a deliberate endeavour to introduce


particular industries and build the premises in integrated units to serve this purpose.
I realise that this is presenting to the hon. and learned Gentleman a very difficult problem, because he will probably feel like telling me of all the difficulties which the Government are up against regarding capital construction. I should have thought, in fact, arising out of our present difficulties, there is an opportunity of doing this. I may be right or wrong about this, but I presume that the present demands of the defence programme on this country are calling for an expansion of particular forms of industrial capacity from the defence point of view.
If that be so, I plead for the Development Areas to have particular consideration in the provision of this extra capacity. I welcome the fact of the Bristol Aeroplane Company having come to Sunderland, and I think it is an excellent thing for us in the town, but, so far as I am aware, over the whole of the North-East Coast, the impact of the defence programme in this regard so far has only been a few small additions and alterations to existing premises.
What I should like to know is what attention has been paid to the Development Areas in considering this question of additional industrial capacity. I do not want to be too theoretical, because one can make out a case in theory which will not work out economically. I know that, in the case of one particular Development Area, they have had the great benefit of the defence programme, but how far has that been fortuitous or strategic? How far has the problem of the Development Areas been related to the needs and demands of the defence programme?
This is all important, because it seems to me that we have to look to new industrial development to conclude a solution of the problem of these areas, not only in regard to shipbuilding but to other industries as well. The Northern Industrial Group have estimated that, on the assumption of a high level of activity and prosperity, we in the North-East would have at least 30,000 people redundant.
I feel that we also have to change our view about the location of industry. This

is a rather difficult matter to raise, because it always causes apprehension in parts of the Development Areas, but we have got to go a little further than just steering industry into the Development Areas. We have to steer industry into those parts of the Development Areas where they serve the greatest social benefit.
I could criticise the administration of the Board of Trade regarding recent projects which have been approved, and I could say that some are going to parts of the Development Areas where, indeed, there is not such urgent need for new industries. I appreciate at once the difficulties of those administering the Act. After all, this operates on the basis of persuasion, and, while we can persuade an industrialist to go into a Development Area, it is extremely difficult to persuade him to go into that part of an area where the siting of the industry would serve the Development Area best.
I do not think this difficulty can be avoided unless we revise the Schedule to the Act. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade will look at this problem to see whether or not the time has come to revise the Schedule. Incidentally, it would also give them the opportunity of considering the claims now being made by other localities which are alleging that they are hit by heavy unemployment. If the prospect is likely to be long-term unemployment, then there would be a case on that ground alone for considering whether or not there should be a review of the Schedule and of the present limits of the Development Areas.
I also feel, and have for some time, that the time has come to review again—I know it is under continuous review, but, shall I say, sharply review—the functions of the trading estate companies and their relationship to the Board of Trade. After all, these companies are now managing very considerable properties and it is for that reason, as I said to the House when the President of the Board of Trade answered my question, that I welcome the inquiry which has been instituted, and we shall have to await the report of Sir Thomas Phillips and Sir Edward Gillett to the President of the Board of Trade.
Perhaps the Central Land Board might also be inquired into, because I have heard some criticism of that board. I think this is a timely inquiry, and that, in a limited way, it should assist the President of the Board of Trade. I believe the fundamental problem is, as it appeared some years ago to the Estimates Committee, that the choice is really wider discretionary powers for the companies or the bringing of the whole administration under the Board of Trade. I think that the late Sir Stafford Cripps was right in deciding with the Committee that the better choice was to increase the discretion of the companies.
In the case of the North-East, the Board of Trade went rather further and appointed, as we had recommended in the Estimates Committee, a full-time chairman of the Board. That experiment, I believe, has worked well for the North-East and has strengthened the Board. It has also, perhaps, increased local influence on the administration of the Act, which is a good thing. As far as economy is concerned. I remember when I left the Board we were able to show that we were making staff economies amounting to £40,000 a year while at the same time no member of the staff was being discharged without having obtained alternative employment. Therefore, from the point of view of economy it had certainly proved its case.
While I congratulate the Board of Trade in going a long way towards allowing the companies a wider discretion, I still feel that much more could be done and that the Parliamentary Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade ought to consider how much further they should go. My own conviction remains that the best form for the boards to take would be that of small, compact executive bodies. I also think that the procedural relationship with the Department could be simplified. I agree that whatever the procedure was, a case could always be made out for simplifying it, but I think it really could be simplified, particularly on accountability and rental policy. All these are very difficult administrative problems, but they could well be reviewed.
I am convinced that the system of financial control should be radically overhauled. Of course, in speaking of all these things, we have to speak subject to

what the present inquiry may discover and comment upon.
But it struck me that Treasury control, and through it Board of Trade control, was really riddled by the maxim that if one looks after the pence the pounds will look after themselves. Generally speaking, I do not think that is a good maxim at all, because if one concentrates on looking after the pence the pounds somehow or other run away. While there was a fairly tight control of small expenditure which was very irritating for those responsible for the management of companies, there was virtually no control of big items of expenditure such as new buildings, specifications, quantities and tenders. In fact, it struck me that those exercising financial control were not equipped to exercise it over such matters.
So we had the anomalous position that while very meticulous control was being exercised in small matters, at the same time large matters of expenditure were not so controlled. So far as adequate financial control goes, my opinion, for what it is worth, is that the best control is that exercised by competent executives responsible to a watchful and knowledgable board.
I know that consideration has been given to it, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the President will again consider the possibility of establishing a national industrial corporation. I think a formula could be devised which, whilst leaving full scope for local initiative, would co-ordinate the seven existing companies within the national corporation. Indeed, I am optimistic enough to believe that such a corporation might well raise its own funds and pay a modest interest. Such a corporation would provide that national planning authority which was one of the cardinal points of the Barlow Report. I believe that that formula would provide a simple form of administration, and would provide for administrative economy and for simple and effective control.
The Parliamentary Secretary may feel that I have been unduly critical, but I assure him that I appreciate very much the work done under this Act. He may feel I have been unduly apprehensive, but I ask him to realise that those of us who live in the former distressed areas have experience of heavy, long-term unemployment and, over the years, have come to


put a great deal of confidence in the development that has taken place under the Distribution of Industry Acts. Any steps that he can take to further the work in the Development Areas will have the united support of those who live in those areas.

8.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has always shown a great interest in the Development Areas and, as I think the House knows, he speaks with exceptional knowledge and experience of this subject. At the outset I should like to thank him for his characteristic courtesy in having given me an indication of some of the topics with which he proposed to deal.
I agree with quite a number of things the hon. Member has said. One of them was that it was not certain that everything was perfect and incapable of improvement. Indeed, it would be very astonishing if it was. This most interesting experiment is not very old. The statutes on the subject, which had the support of all parties in the House, are, after all, the statutes of 1945 and 1950. In the course of my remarks I hope to cover some of the points with which the hon. Member wishes me to deal, but I would assure him at the outset that I do not feel the slightest temptation to score any debating points. He has most skilfully suggested the debating points which I could score, but I feel no such temptation.
He made an interesting speech, and those topics with which I cannot fully deal I shall certainly study. There are one or two which I shall study rather than reply to, because they seem to me to require legislation and so would be out of order on this occasion; but that will not stop the consideration of the points which he has raised. One point he made and which I would at once deny is that the Administration, or Her Majesty's Government, are doing everything they can to stop people from going into the Development Areas. That was really a complete misapprehension of the facts.
Let me say at once that I quite appreciate the hon. Member's fears as to the effects of the economies which are necessary as a result of our economic position.

He feared the results of cuts in money spent in building as a result of our capital investment programme and the shortage of steel. Sometimes one and sometimes the other is the more immediate limiting factor. The limitations which those factors put on the possibility of building affect the question of building everywhere—in the Development Areas and elsewhere. I should be misleading the House if I suggested that this did not make impossible, in present circumstances, the carrying out of all sorts of projects which would otherwise be attractive; but that is part of the data of the situation and we cannot help that.
I do not wish to enlarge on this subject, partly because I made a previous speech on the Development Areas on 7th December last year and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made one as recently as 20th May. I know that the hon. Member, who follows these things so closely, will not wish me to repeat what was said in either of those debates. Any building project now has to satisfy the most stringent test. It must satisfy the test of advancing production for defence, for exports, or for other essential needs; but, if any project can satisfy that test, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we like to see it established in a Development Area.
I do not say that the test is not a rigid test; it is, and it must be, in present circumstances. But provided that test can be satisfied there is nowhere we more like to see a project established than in a Development Area. I am assuming—and I know the hon. Gentleman, from his knowledge of the subject, knows the necessity for saying this—that the project is free to go there. There may be all sorts of considerations, such as the convenience to other industries, strategic and other considerations, which may make it impracticable. Those who are very knowledgeable on the theory and practice of this subject sometimes talk about "foot-free" industries—industries which are free to go anywhere. Where an industry in that position can satisfy the test, the hon. Member can rest assured that there is nowhere the Board of Trade would rather see it go than into a Development Area.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the scheme for building specialised factories in advance of knowledge of prospective tenants. It is true that in July, 1950, the


late Administration agreed on a limited programme, up to 15 factories, to go forward in advance of tenants being available in those parts where the risk of male unemployment was greatest. The hon. Member spoke about two in his area. I have a list of three, and perhaps I had better give their names. They are, the factory at Jarrow on the Bede Estate; the Pallion Estate in Sunderland; and the Annfield Plain project in North-West Durham.

Mr. F. Willey: The Greencroft site.

Mr. Strauss: This programme was contemplated but before a year had passed the defence programme and the need for economy caused it to be stayed. I know the hon. Gentleman makes the point that the unemployment position may then have been different, but I think he will agree that I am not being unfair when I state that the motive for staying the project was not that the late Administration ceased to like the scheme, but the fact that the need for economy and the defence programme compelled them. I assure him that the need is no less compelling today. In the case of one of the three projects, in the area which he has in mind, the Ransome and Marles ball bearing factory has done something to improve the position.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) both put Questions to the present Government on the possibility of carrying on the scheme which I have described, and I should like to quote the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the two hon. Members on 28th February, when he said:
The building of factories in the Development Areas in advance of demand was deferred indefinitely by the previous Government early in 1951 and the present shortage of steel and need to restrict capital investment are such that I do not think that I would be justified in reversing this decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 187.]
That accurately states what is the position today. I know the hon. Gentleman has this question at heart and does not wish to ask for something that might do some good in one area by inflicting harm somewhere else. I therefore beg the House to remember that there is a real danger here. Any new project started now may involve stopping some other project already approved. I think that

the House will agree it would be indefensible in present circumstances to erect a factory in advance of requirements, without prospective tenants and without knowing the nature of the work to be carried on, when there are so many immediate needs which we would satisfy, if we could, but have reluctantly to postpone.
The hon. Member quite rightly mentioned one of the principal industries in the part of the country with which he was particularly dealing, namely, the ship-building industry, and he rejoiced, as we all do, that that industry is very prosperous at present, and that there are no signs of an early recession. But let me assure him that the problem of a possible future decline will, of course, be borne in mind. Review of the development areas and policy on them is, as I think the hon. Member appreciates, continuous in the Department, and the level of activity in the ship-building industry must always be a most important consideration when we are considering our policy.
On the question of employment and the reduction of unemployment. I certainly do not want to enter into any unnecessary controversy with the hon. Member, because I think that our aims on the subject of the location of industry are similar. I pointed out in my answer the changes in the employment of both men and women that had occurred, and that the total number of employed was more than a year ago, and I think it is worth noting that the rate of unemployment at 2.9 per cent. is below the rate of the Development Areas as a whole, although higher, of course, than in other areas. Dealing for the moment with the Development Area to which he devoted the greater part of his speech. I thought that was a figure which was worth giving in answer to him.

Mr. F. Willey: That means that when we are regarding the Development Areas as a whole, the other areas are in a worse position than those on the North-East Coast. I concede that on the general level of unemployment the North-East Coast is rather better off than many of the other areas. If we deal with the general position that means that there is a more acute problem in some of the other areas.

Mr. Strauss: One would expect the Development Areas to be worse than the


rest of the country, and that to a large extent is why they are Development Areas.
As regards the long-term policy, I was going to mention the Bristol Aeroplane Factory at Sunderland, but as the hon. Member was good enough to mention that himself I need not say anything more about it, except to say that as he welcomes it so does the Board of Trade. The hon. Member also talked about the possible simplification of machinery. I shall study what he said, but he must never forget that it is, after all, the Board of Trade and not the estate company who have certain statutory powers and duties in the matter.
The hon. Member asked me about contract figures, and I should like to give him a little more than I did when I last spoke on an Adjournment debate on the subject. I then said that the value of orders placed by the Ministry of Supply in development and unemployment areas in the period from 1st April to 30th September, 1951, was £49.8 million, or over 10 per cent. of the total orders, amounting to £467.5 million, placed by the Department.
I will now carry the story on to the next six months ending 31st March, 1952. In that time £65 million worth of orders out of a total of £376.5 million, or over 17 per cent. has been placed in those areas. There may be an element of chance about that. I know it is a figure which the hon. Gentleman will welcome very much, but we must approach it with caution. The figure is very good, but I should not like to say how this may work out over a longer period.
The changing of Development Areas can be done without legislation, though not without bringing the matter before the House on an Affirmative Resolution. Areas can be removed from the Schedule or added to the Schedule, and it is a matter of constant consideration whether either course is right in regard to different areas.
Speaking the other night, my right hon. Friend gave the House some examples of certain proposals for new areas which had been put forward. It was significant that there was a very great difference of opinion even among the Lancashire Members of Parliament belonging to the party opposite on

whether that was a desirable thing to do. The question whether it is good policy to make a certain area a Development Area is one on which different opinions are possible irrespective of a man's political views. It is a difficult question, but it is certainly continuously examined to see whether a change is right.
I was glad to hear the terms in which the hon. Member referred to the inquiry which is being held by Sir Thomas Phillips and Sir Edward Gillett, which will be followed by a report to the President of the Board of Trade. As the hon. Member said, the first thing to do is to await the result of the inquiry. Perhaps I might inform the House—I expect that the hon. Member already knows it—that the investigators have visited each of the estate companies.
Having covered, though briefly, most of the topics raised, I would only add that the subject is as interesting as it is important. It is one on which different views are possible as to the right solution in a particular case, but it is one on which I hope and believe there is no fundamental difference between the two sides of the House.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I am very interested in this debate on Development Area policy, particularly because my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has raised this matter tonight, but I cannot say that I was completely satisfied with the answer that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave. I am sure that he will appreciate that the problem that we are now facing in regard to Development Areas is due entirely to unconscious industrial planning, particularly in the years between the wars, not to mention earlier periods.
During that time, when the depressed areas came prominently to our notice, there were large numbers of men without work in those areas; nevertheless, in other parts of the country, new industrial development was taking place where there was a shortage of labour. Many of us thought that it really was most unwise to permit new industrial development in new areas when, in the depressed areas—which are now very largely Development Areas—there was much unemployment because there was no balanced industrial development. They were very largely dependent upon one or two industries,


and when those industries fell upon evil days the whole of the population had to suffer.
In view of the knowledge which the hon. and learned Gentleman has of town and country planning, I thought probably he might have said a word not merely about Development Areas but about the over-developed areas. I thought he might have told us how the Board of Trade were trying to link up our overdeveloped with our under-developed areas. I come from a part of the country where we have suffered for some long time now from over-development. When one peruses the plans, such as the Greater London plan and the County of London plan, one discovers that our problem of housing, to mention no other problem, is largely due to the intense industrial concentration not merely in London but on the fringes of the Greater London area.
One-third of the industrial production of our country is situated in the Southern parts of England and one-quarter of the nation's population is within the confines of the Greater London area. Much of the area is completely built up, and there is no land left for housing development and very little left for further industrial expansion. My constituency borders upon what is known as the North-West London industrial concentration, one of the heaviest concentrations in the country. It is a comparatively modern development, which has taken place in the years between the wars when there was much unemployment in the distressed areas. Many of these industries were small when they came and newly-developing. In course of time they have expanded, and the position now in many parts is that there is no further room for expansion.
Some time ago the President of the Board of Trade gave me information about the extent of the consents which he was giving to extensions and new developments of industrial undertakings in the Greater London area. Frankly, I was rather surprised at the extent to which the Board of Trade were giving approvals to further development in areas where there is over-development and where, in fact, the reverse process should take place.
I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might have told us something of

what the Board of Trade is doing in regard to directing the over-developed areas. My hon. Friend mentioned light engineering and electrical engineering, which are a predominant feature of the industrial development of the area I am talking about, where there is constant and continuous expansion as a result of the new way of doing things, and little room for expansion. What is the Board of Trade doing to persuade industries of that type to go to Development Areas and, if necessary, take their undertakings there, rather than giving them permits to go to another part of the Greater London region?
The problem in Greater London is now becoming acute and we have been advocating for a long time for some action to be taken under the existing plans to disperse industry from the over-developed regions. I do not think the dispersal of industry is being carried out sufficiently speedily. It is important for reasons other than those which have been advanced. 1t is a bad thing for our country in the event of an emergency that many of these vital industries should be situated too near London.
I remember during the war years the concentrated bombing attacks on this area, where were situated some of the most vital industries that the country needed. In fact, at one time there was only one factory in our country producing radar, which was responsible for our winning the Battle of Britain in the air; and although the enemy tried on many occasions to destroy the factories round about, there was a time when one well-placed bomb would have destroyed completely our only productive unit of radar equipment. That is one side of the electrical industry which since then has expanded. I believe, therefore, that such vital industries should be taken away from vulnerable areas and dispersed to other parts of the country. I believe that a place can be found for them in the Development Areas.
I know, too, that the housing problem has some bearing upon the dispersal of industry. It is important, if we are to effect better planning in Greater London and really attempt to solve our serious housing problem, that we should make a determined effort not merely to disperse some of our industrial undertakings to the Development Areas, but also to pro-


vide more housing accommodation so that some of our people may go there as well.
I feel that my hon. Friend has raised an important topic tonight. It is a matter of considerable interest not only to him and his friends in the Development Areas, but also to many of us in the overdeveloped areas where we are doing as much as we can to effect the opposite trend to that which my hon. Friend is trying to achieve.
We can secure a great advance if the Board of Trade can more closely link up

to the development areas those underdeveloped regions of the country where there is over-industrialisation and where there is little, if any, room for expansion except by encroaching upon the limited residential areas. If something can be done by the Department to link up these two kinds of areas, it would be to the satisfaction of all. This debate has been well worth while, and I hope that it will help us to solve our problems.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Nine o'Clock.